What Truly Defines a Good Leader?

When Filipinos look at the current crop of leaders, it’s hard not to feel a sense of frustration. Many express the sentiment that more formal education, or at least some minimum qualifications, might elevate the quality of leadership in the country. Frequent missteps, from public gaffes to misguided policies, fuel the perception that well-educated leaders would make more informed decisions. For many, the idea of requiring educational qualifications for leaders seems like a logical solution to the issues we face. But alas, most countries, including the Philippines, do not impose such requirements for their top leaders. Despite the frustrations, there are deep-rooted reasons why democratic societies, including ours, do not mandate formal educational qualifications for heads of state or government.

Democratic Values and Representation

At the heart of any democracy is the idea of equal opportunity—allowing citizens from all walks of life to participate in the political process. Requiring higher educational qualifications for leadership could undermine this core principle by creating an exclusive standard that many capable individuals might not meet.

In the Philippines, where socioeconomic inequality remains a significant issue, imposing educational requirements could limit access to leadership roles for many talented individuals who may not have had the opportunity to pursue higher education. In our country, where education is not equally accessible to everyone, such a restriction would likely alienate a large portion of the population, especially those from rural areas and marginalized communities. Instead of fostering more competent leadership, this might reinforce elitism and prevent those who understand the struggles of ordinary Filipinos from reaching leadership positions.

Moreover, democracy thrives on representation. Leaders should ideally reflect the diverse experiences of the population they serve. Limiting leadership to those with formal education could result in a government dominated by the elite, disconnected from the day-to-day realities of most citizens. By keeping leadership open to all, regardless of educational background, democracy ensures that different perspectives, life experiences, and solutions can inform governance.

?Leadership Beyond Academic Qualifications

While education is undeniably important, it does not guarantee effective leadership. Governance requires a broad range of qualities, many of which are not exclusively tied to academic achievement. In the case of the Philippines, it’s easy to see why citizens might wish for leaders with stronger educational backgrounds, especially in light of recent challenges. However, leadership often demands more than what can be learned in classrooms.

A striking example in Philippine history is Ferdinand Marcos Sr., widely regarded as a learned man with an impressive educational background and intellectual prowess. He held a law degree, passed the bar, and was known for his eloquence and sharp mind. Yet, despite his academic credentials, Marcos presided over one of the most corrupt regimes in Philippine history. His administration, infamous for plundering the nation’s resources and violating human rights during martial law, shows that formal education alone does not guarantee ethical leadership or good governance.

Even leaders with good intentions and strong academic backgrounds do not automatically deliver effective governance. The pressures of leadership often reveal that moral integrity, empathy, and a strong commitment to the public good are as crucial, if not more so, than any educational achievement. Even do-gooders, or those who are perceived as having the best of intentions, do not always guarantee good governance. Leaders may have noble ideals but can still fail due to poor judgment, lack of political will, or failure to implement their vision effectively.

This example reveals a crucial point: leadership requires more than just academic achievement or good intentions. Marcos Sr. may have had the intellectual capability, and some may have started with good intentions, but governance requires a combination of ethical leadership, moral fortitude, and the ability to prioritize the public's well-being over personal gain. Leadership requires moral integrity, empathy, and a genuine commitment to the well-being of the people—qualities that education and good intentions alone cannot instill.

The Risk of Disenfranchisement

Imposing educational qualifications for leadership positions could also disenfranchise a large segment of the population. In the Philippines, where access to higher education remains uneven, such requirements would disproportionately exclude people from lower-income backgrounds, rural areas, or those who had fewer educational opportunities. By doing so, we would risk silencing the very voices that need representation the most.

This issue becomes even more troubling when we consider that many of those who lack formal education often have valuable insights into the challenges faced by ordinary citizens. A leader who has experienced poverty or come from a disadvantaged background may be better equipped to understand and address the root causes of inequality than someone whose life has been shaped by privilege and academic theory. Requiring formal education could remove these valuable perspectives from the political process and further deepen the gap between the governed and the governing.

Leadership is about possessing the right combination of empathy, decision-making ability, and integrity—qualities that cannot always be measured by formal education alone.

Trusting the Voters?

In a democratic system, it is ultimately the voters who decide who is fit to lead. It is their right to assess candidates based on a variety of factors, including education, experience, values, and vision for the future. While it’s understandable that Filipinos may look at some leaders and wish for higher educational standards, democracy is about giving people the freedom to choose.

By trusting voters to make these judgments, democracies like the Philippines ensure that leadership reflects the will of the people. Voters can—and do—decide for themselves whether a candidate’s educational background is important. In some cases, voters may prioritize education, while in others, they might value life experience or personal integrity more. The flexibility of this system ensures that leadership is not defined by rigid criteria, but by the qualities the electorate deems most important.

Avoiding Elitism and Bias

Establishing educational qualifications for leadership could also foster elitism and further concentrate power in the hands of a select few. By making formal education a requirement for leadership, we risk reinforcing the dominance of those from privileged backgrounds, limiting the diversity of ideas and approaches in government.

In a society that values inclusivity and diverse perspectives, it’s crucial to maintain an open political system where leadership opportunities are available to all, regardless of educational background. This inclusivity ensures that a wide range of voices, from all walks of life, can contribute to the nation’s governance.?

Conclusion

While the frustration many Filipinos feel toward the current state of leadership is understandable, formal education should not be a prerequisite for holding high office. Leadership is about more than academic credentials—it encompasses empathy, decision-making ability, resilience, and the capacity to inspire others. Imposing educational qualifications could undermine democratic principles, disenfranchise capable individuals, and foster elitism. Ultimately, the strength of a democracy lies in its ability to allow the people to choose their leaders based on a holistic evaluation of their qualities, not just their academic backgrounds.