On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Bruce Metcalf<bruce.metc...@figzu.com> wrote: > [...] > This educational standard does not guarantee wisdom, which is what I'm sure > we'd all here prefer, but it does argue that the individual has the skills > with which to consider the news and make a decision. This is, I grant, a > long way from saying they will *apply* those skills.
You said it :) precisely why education as a criteria falls short on many counts. While it could be argued that education is a facilitator in the thought process, the educated and (hence) wise[0] human does not inspire much confidence in me. If you look at India's neighbours, we have educated leaders (or should it be called military rulers?) in atleast 2 countries, democratically elected[1] leaders in exile/house arrest, etc.... In each of them its (highly?) _educated_ leaders that successfully broke the democratic system. In a democracy, i dont distinguish between an illiterate farmer and an IIT/Harvard educated individual at the helm -- there is simply no guarantee that the latter is better at governance than the former, unless each of them has worked within the system, delivered and hence "walked the talk". If a Laloo Yadav can ensure employee punctuality and improve the Indian railways somewhat, he has my support, his lack of a pedigree education, English language skills and corruption charges notwithstanding - his constituency will take care of that with the inkblot on their finger. [0] someone needs to define this abstract adjective to accommodate diversity ;) [1] it may be argued that, elections are rigged, voters paid off, etc.. but unless there is no mass uprising, i'll go with the simplistic view that the janata/voters are satisfied with their elected leaders. I cant seem to think of a better reasoning for apathy. -- .
