Having a PhD doesn’t make you a good politician

From Moaz Nair

Many of our politicians today have a PhD title, but does this make them better politicians?

Many of them are not academics. But then politics is not a scholastic affair. It’s an art of compromise where politicians have to work within real-world constraints. Academic or high-flying textbook theories may not really work in the world of politics.

The mindset that has besieged Malaysians for so long is that politicians with impressive academic titles can become better politicians. Some politicians may even go all out to have academic titles attached to their names so as to convince the masses that they are “obnoxiously clever”.

Academic credentials are an asset for a politician but this does not mean that he can become an archetypal politician.

In politics, being charismatic matters more than academic titles. Many academics who went into politics have failed as most of them have been too textbook-oriented in their approach to the unpredictable economic and social turbulence engulfing the world.

Academics are usually obstinately inflexible when proposing solutions or formulas to these quandaries.

For that matter, they are usually too idealistic and always would want things to be done their way. They keep to their ideals and seldom would want to compromise. This attribute makes it hard for them to become flexible in politics, what more to become team players.

Take a fresh look

Malaysians should start shedding the perception that those with high qualifications can become effective political leaders. Most of the renowned and effective political leaders of the past throughout the world never had a PhD and were not even university educated.

A PhD only reflects research and ability into a single area of knowledge and specialisation. A PhD holder in one area may know nothing about other areas of knowledge if he or she is not well-read, worse still if he has no practical experience but would want to unwaveringly subscribe to textbook knowledge, which would not really work in the political world.

To become a politician, a person must be rhetorically convincing even though it may only carry little substance. The person must first of all have the political appeal, and be willing to work for the people and accept human frailties in life. A good politician must be patient and be willing to accept criticism and defeat, as he has now become a public figure.

Unlike a politician, an academic would not tolerate off-putting criticism and does not accept dim-witted comments just like what often happens in our local political scene.

The struggle for power

Politics at a certain level and in some illiterate societies is all about struggling to gain power, manipulation, and convincing people with promises. A true academic will not resort to such undignified behaviour.

Very few local exemplary academics make good politicians. The late Dr Syed Hussein Al-Alatas and Dr T Marimuthu of MIC and even Dr Chandra Muzaffar, all of whom are professors, never actually made it in politics, though they managed to make some impact at the start.

PhD holders who have proven themselves in their areas of expertise in the real world are usually roped into politics in a literate and developed society. They make good workers but this is limited to the level of getting things executed at the highest level but not going down to the grassroots to talk about what politics is all about.

Mark of a politician

In fact, in a literate and developed society, the people need not have to be convinced by political rhetoric and promises. They just want to see things delivered and therefore they seek leaders who are down to earth and speak to them plainly irrespective of their academic titles.

A politician is not judged by their academic qualifications but by their execution. Academic qualifications are empty without the tangible ability to deliver on socio-economic reforms, infrastructure, and constituent welfare.

The masses would want political figures who have ideas that are realistic, pragmatic, and that they are able to do a better check-and-balance duty in a healthy democracy.

A political scientist may, however, be a good observer of politics, writing and commenting about politics but may fail when he joins the people in the world of politics.

Moaz Nair is an FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.