A very learned friend was a participant in an IRC
discussion.
The IRC discussion was about the local political scene
purportedly mandating paper qualifications for credible
candidature. I was told that a lot of good arguments were thrown up
and they are in short summarized hereinbelow.
I have reproduced these with the kind permission of the author,
which until he tells me that he does not mind being named, i shall
not name him 
1. Having paper qualifications has little to do with
integrity.
2. Political education and savviness is not usually formally
taught.
3. Not having paper qualifications does not mean a person does
not have an education i.e. he can be self taught
4. There is also the question of who should decide what the formal
criteria for the eligibility of candidates ought to be.
5. The requirement of paper qualifcations for candidates
reserves the right to rule to the upper classes, which will
entrench themselves and therefore undemocratic.
6. Politicians, even ministers, always have a team of specialists
which they can consult. It’s more important to look at the
qualifications of that team.
7. In a system where money has incredible corrupting influence,
politicians must above all have backbone, not simply paper
qualifications.
8. The quality of candidates should be judged by the people, not by
some institution (schools).
9. Candidates with paper qualifications is a bonus, if they are one
with the citizenry, they will be elected anyway and hence no
requirements for paper qualifications are necessary
10. Having an educated electorate is the priority, not highly
educated candidates per se. This leads to a more sustainable
political system.
11. Putting point 4 and 9 together, mandating paper qualifications
creates an aristocracy/dictatorship that will dumb down the public
to maintain their grip on power. This is unsustainable.
http://chiatilik.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/what-political-candidates-should-have/
