Here’s one “easy” partial solution to the problems of government everywhere. World Wide, really, but in America in particular.
To get into any public office (elected, appointed, hired, doesn’t matter, city, county, state or federal) you first have to pass a test. A basic competency test for Public Office in that country. A test on government (practical and theoretical), elementary legal process, basic office procedures, the differences between democracy, socialism, communism, a republic, an anarchy, a plutocracy, and so on, a randomly selected group of the amendments to the constitution (assuming the country in question has such a document, of course — many do), manners, basic diplomacy, basic literacy, middling-detailed history of the country you intend so serving, and so on. For high office, some knowledge of the mannerisms and culture of other nations or entities that office might be expected to deal with regularly, also. (Like a former American president who thought nothing of turning his back on the Queen of England during his visit there… sooooo embarrassing, as well as harmful to America’s standing (and clout) world-wide — which made it a serious violation of the demands of the office and a betrayal to those who put him there.)
Every candidate for office should have to take this test (of which there should be several versions, scoring the same way, making it impossible to just “get the answers” ahead of time) then must publish his results, his score on this test, as part of his application to run for or apply for that office / job. The test might (probably would) have several levels to it; I mean, no need for a person on the city council of a small town to have to pass the same level of competency as a candidate for the Presidency. (Is there?) So some appropriate “scaling” of the test (it’s called scaling, when something sizes up or down to meet demands).
(Might also have to publish a video of the candidate / applicant while taking the test(s), to show him actually there and filling it out. Full public disclosure is one way to help ensure the tests remain honest. No purchasing of the answers. Even Ancient Rome had a series of heavy hurdles any one in public life had to work his way up through to prove his qualification for each additional — and higher — office.)
After that, and only after that, does he “run for office” or get to go to the job interview or what ever. The test results themselves would not bar you from office; but the voters (or the job interviewer, or whatever) get to know the results and can use that data to judge the candidate along with what ever he has to say.
I mean, no one walks in off the street and applies for Chief of Surgery at a hospital without some serious credentials, right? You don’t get hired to run Heavy Equipment when you don’t even have a driver’s license, right? So, how does some one get into Congress or the Executive (the Presidency) without at least similar screening for competency and suitability for the job? Or even on a City Council without provable competency for the job?
Wasn’t it embarrassing when a recent former president didn’t even know that New Mexico is one of his states, not part of Mexico? One of the states of the American Union that he was supposedly in charge of?
Embarrassing, and — to my mind — should have brought him up immediately on competency hearings, forcing an examination by psychologists, medical doctors and professors of Basic Knowledge to evaluate his fitness to be in charge of the biggest nuclear stock pile on the planet (possibly the biggest — real data on that score is hard to come by these days).
Can any one with so much power be trusted without knowing his credentials and suitability for holding so much power? (2)
Ok… there’s one possibly legitimate objection (that occurs to me — probably are others). This might bar “illiterate” folks from office, even unfairly, or might also be described as potentially “prejudicial” socially, filtering out certain “classes” of people from those offices. Well, the office is still a job, and a job has job requirements. Even McDonald’s has requirements for its jobs: “Can you life a 50 pound box?” for example. Filtering by race, gender, religious background, hair color, eye color, height and shoe size (and all other utter irrelevancies) would have to be absolutely eliminated from consideration, of course, as they should have been eliminated from our hearts and minds centuries ago. But that’s obvious.
Still can’t qualify for the office you want to be in? Then get hired on by someone already in that office (or one like it) as an apprentice, assistant, etc, and work your way up. Or get the ear of a senator (for example) and get your views across to him. If you have something of value to offer the System, and if the System is largely run by educated and experienced people (and rational folks, not stuffy or arrogant ones(1)) then that System would likely be open to actually hearing your views and possibly even acting on them. (Gosh!) So such a System [in theory, yes, I admit it] should work better all the way around, not just for those can qualify for a given office. It would bring competency to the System.
Competency is currently lacking in too much of the public administration and governmental system overall. That is, there are plenty of people who are perfectly competent in their jobs, but the demands of the position have stagnated, or there aren’t enough such folks, or… in general the System is sluggish, staid, obese, ossified (and several other $1.50 words that equally apply, none of them especially flattering).
Still can’t qualify for that job you wanted? Well, I wanted to work at JPL, I did, but I couldn’t qualify for it. Do I scream unfair prejudice? Don’t be silly. What makes a job at JPL, or McDonalds, different from a job in Washington or Moscow or London, or the AMA or the CDC?(3)
Strange idea, that, yes? No?
Why isn’t this obvious? Have I missed something?(4)
[30]
(1) That’s another issue that needs addressing, of course. Along with the candidate’s basic skills test scores, his IQ and EQ should also be published, plus a full psychological profile. Problem there, our various sciences of psychology would have to come to an agreement on what “Sane” actually is, and, while psychology isn’t as fuzzy a science as many believe it to be, culturally/socially it is very fuzzy. Still, who wants a person in the executive office (of any country) who can’t pass a basic psych screening? So… basic skills, basic intelligence (IQ), emotional maturity (EQ) and a full psych profile, to fill out the paper work to apply for the office. You still get to “run for office” but these scores must be public information for the voters consideration.
(2) A basic rule of thumb here that very few in very many public offices would care to hear (but is reflected in a lot of writing — not my own idea, by the way) is that those who seek power are the last ones who should allowed any where near it. George Orwell in his book 1984 made the statement, “the purpose of power is power.” Think on that, long and hard. Try to disprove it, if you can.
(3) Well… of course the top “job” in Moscow isn’t really a job in the traditional sense, so much as a position that was grabbed and is held on to by means the rest of the world might consider illegal. But that’s an internal matter to Russia and is their problem to resolve (or not, as they see fit), except when and if — as is happening, of course — the forces under command of this usurper start marching into the lands and affairs of people he is not in charge of, not by any stretch. Don’t want your own country to get that way? Then consider this system outlined above, and any and all other systems you can think of, find, or stumble upon. Remember the phrase “… to create a more perfect union…” a more perfect union, meaning no governmental system is or can be perfect, but (joyfully!) can always be improved if one is willing to go there. That, of course, is the catch. Too few of the governed are willing to oversee their leaders, even periodically, but are content to do the Sheeple-Sheeple thing.
(4) I submit that it’s completely obvious, but gets passed over by the general consent of those who would have to implement it, because the action might end up disqualifying those same people from their jobs. The Cat voluntarily Belling itself, to protect the Mice — not going to happen. The same reason (I suspect) that psychology and the mental health sciences have mostly failed to define what a fully functional human being is, lest the particular researcher find himself on the wrong side of the fence after having done so. Yes, it’s a lot to ask; but isn’t it necessary? Both in government and in mental health? (And, really — aren’t those two professions very close to each other? One’s the mental / emotional health of an individual, the other is the mental / emotional health of the Herd… er, um… nation, I meant, of course.)