What do you think about the elections in the world countries?
Should politicians, presidents, prime ministers, deputies, ministers – secretaries - and 
rulling class  choices be done among
the ones, principally, who know at least two or three languages,
and the ones who has  at least a Ph.D. in their own field,
and the ones who get attention to art and literature
and the ones who is an intellectual nominees?

It is discriminatory to elect only from a small group of people. The fact that somebody has PhD does not make him or her a good candidate. Education is not the ultimate factor that makes people worthy or unworthy public office. The same goes for art and literature lovers. Their hobbies do not make them good politicians.

In my opinion the choice everybody makes during elections is choosing somebody who seems trustworthy or shares similar beliefs to ours. It is unfortunatly often the case that among the people running for office there is nobody worth voting for

I don´t get why people with PhD would make better politicians. PhD means nothing but the fact that somebody has some knowledge in one particular field, not that they are ethical, able to make unbiased choices or not likely to become corrupt.

It´s as illogical as electing only rich people, assuming that since they are good businessmen, they´ll make the country become rich.

If I am not mistaken, a lot people that led revolutions were not very educated, but they had the courage to stand for what they believe in and had the passion to change the way things were.

I get why politicians need to have knowledge of world events and have enough sense to be able to deal with people but I agree with DD that an education does not always guarantee these qualities. 

As far as rich people being politicians...I think if you are rich enough you can be just about anything you want be even if you´re not very good at it.   

For me, voting is always a tough decision because I realize that a large percentage of what most politicians say is complete bulls**t and that only the candidates that raise the most money or come from the right families get the most votes. 

One does need to be knowledgeable about world events, history, how things work in order to lead people...IOW education is important.

I think the issue is that many who pass for being educated are in fact vocationally trained, not educated. I have met some very ignorant doctors and lawyers.

Money does seem to place an inordinate amount of influence in who is in and who is out....look at Meg Whitman...spent over 100 million $ so far....then there is....Carly Fiorina. I really hope they DO NOT get in office. Whitman didn´t even vote for over 28 years...yea...she really cares about Californians?????

Thank you so much for your meaningful opinions for this topic..
You are right…
I tried to understand these opinions.
it is too confusing for me.

But I hink we need to change our approach to this political problem .
I think the  person, principally,  who has not at least PhD or is not well-educated/cultured,
who don’t know  at least two-three languages and  don’t get attention to art and literature, 
together with leadership quality,  never become worthy, good politician,
good leader, helpful and successful…
They never think well if they are not intellectual…

I believe that “art and literature” is very important factor for a person, for a leadership.
A person who are not interested in art and literature, is not sensitive, fair,
honest and merciful in general according to  the psychologists.

And language…Languages make people well-educated, cultured, wide and good thinker.Language means brain, Three languages means three persons/brains, two languages means two persons/brains.If you know three languages then you have three brains. 

And science…Ph.D makes people good expert in a field.This is a scientific, social and
responsible discipline as a first political step.Science and moral come first.
And science is the best way to solve the social and economical problems.

And leadership..Leadership means experience, requires high level experience
and knowledge.It requires big labor.It is not free.

It is the year 2010…The world has been changing…

Working at a university I can honestly say that a PhD is not the best measure of capabilities of a person. To get a good PhD you have to make friends in universities, and that is just like "real" politics.

What I would like to see is at least some background in the field in which somebody is going to be a minister in. For example, we have had a minister of financial affairs here with a degree in history... yes... very useful... It would be nice to be able to read a balance sheet if you become a minister. But if you have a PhD in this field, perhaps you will never come up with creative ideas. You get stuck in the old network of grey prof´s and just repeat the same old story.

Not having a PhD says nothing about a person´s intelligence, but just says that the person was not interested in the field of research. You only get a PhD if you want to be a professor or do something in research, otherwise it´s waisting your time. And I also know that leadership is not dependent on having higher education. Leadership is being able to motivate people and get them to do amazing things. A great leader doesn´t have to be the smartest person in its field... A great leader knows where to find the smartest people, and get them to do great things.

While I really respect the work one has to put into getting a Phd, I don´t think it should be a requisit for leadership. A formal education is expensive (everyone can not afford it), however, being educated does not just happen in formal schools. Life is the best teacher, some learn, others do not. I would look at what a person has acomplished in their life, rather than if they have a Phd.

The ability to delegate well is imperative

The bold text in red reminds me Judith Polgar.

She has never attended to any school to get a formal training. She and her two older sisters, Grandmaster Susan and International Master Sofia, were part of an educational experiment carried out by their father László Polgár, in an attempt to prove that children could make exceptional achievements if trained in a specialist subject from a very early age." Geniuses are made, not born," was László´s thesis. He and his wife Klara educated their three daughters at home, with chess as the specialist subject.

Judith´s CV is below:

I have never been good at writing CVs. This is because I have trouble coming up with the usual items, such as educational institution, course of study, profession and career path. I never went to school, having done all my studies at home, and I have never held a conventional job.


Practically from the moment of my birth, on July 23, 1976, I became involved in an educational experiment. Even before I came into the world, my parents had already decided: I would be a chess player.


My sister Susan had been a successful player for years, winning one tournament after the other.

Based on educational research, our parents decided that their children’s lives and careers would be a living example that would prove that any healthy child – if taught early and intensively - can be brought up to be an outstanding person – or, in the words of my father László Polgár: a genius.


Thus, my CV essentially consists of my achievements as a chess player. I was 9 when I first won an international chess tournament, and at age 12 and 14, I won the boys’ World Youth Chess tournament in my age groups. I was 12 when – for the first time in the history of Hungarian chess – my team, including Ildikó Mádl and my two sisters Susan and Sofia, won an Olympic gold medal in women’s chess. We repeated this achievement in 1990. But ever since that second Olympic gold medal, I have competed only against men.

In 1991, I became Chess Grandmaster, breaking Bobby Fischer’s record as youngest grandmaster in history at the time. On four occasions, I played on the Hungarian men’s Olympic chess team, and we won a silver medal in 2002. I have defeated world chess champions Spassky, Karpov, Kasparov, Topalov and Anand at international tournaments, matches and rapid tournaments.

I have been the world’s No. 1 woman chess player for nearly 20 years straight, since 1989. Among men, I was ranked 8th in 2005. I was awarded the Chess Oscar seven times, and was elected Woman Chess Player of the Century.

In the past few years, I have been able to add some “normal” items to my CV: In 2000, I married Gusztáv Font, a veterinarian. We have two children, Olivér and Hanna. And thus, not only my CV, but my whole life has become more complete.