Meaning candidates to be elected as our political representatives?
Duh, whose apathy etc are you talking about, and what exactly do you mean by "quality"? In context that would usually mean somebody who stays bought.
Political market researchers all over the world have been noticing a marked increase in cynicism and apathy about politics and politicians since the early 1980's - a consistent upward trend until now it is a majority attitude in most countries. So I refer to the apathy of most citizens - even those many who do vote (in countries where it is voluntary) and feel that what they do makes no difference.
If so many feel this way, that means a very large number do not want to engage in the political process. The numbers of party members are falling everywhere. This also means fewer people willing to stand for election. When there is less choice one still has to pick from what is available, even if the choice is not desirable at all. Hence there are candidates with insufficient merit to do a good job as head of state - they no longer have the same statesmanlike capacities as they did throughout much of democratic history.
By quality, I mean the attributes required to make a leader worthy to be responsible for a nation's governance and direction.
I see the necessary qualities as intelligence, honesty, integrity, insight into human nature, excellent communication and ability to unite a team and negotiate solutions, willingness to act on expert independent advice, able to make unpopular decisions if it clearly benefits the country as a whole, regarding all citizens' interests as equally important, and willing to face and find solutions for dilemmas when some of those interests clash. A thorough understanding of law and history should be essential, as should long experience in public life.
Of course, others might choose a different set of attributes.
Very little. It takes considerable initiative and gumption to even run for office in an environment where any candidate is not just likely, but practically certain to become the target of several months of smear campaigns.
Thank you. I agree that candidates need titanium and carbon-fibre laminated armour. And maybe plastic raincoats as well.
Do you think it would be possible to legislate a standard or code of conduct for civil debate, and to restrict challenges to proven facts without hyperbole?
If this were possible, would it attract a wider range of candidates, among whom might be some with more and better qualifications?
