Over the past century, Canada has imposed a lot of restrictions on its electors, trimming the number of people who are allowed to cast a ballot. Until not that long ago, women, First Nations, Chinese and Indo-Canadians, among others, were denied the right to vote.
Our rules about who is allowed to run have roughly paralleled those rules. If you can vote, you can run for office. A modern candidate must be a Canadian citizen and over the age of 18.
But should voters and electors be the same groups?
We always talk about holding politicians to a higher standard, but that doesn't seem to start until they enter office and begin failing. Why not test them before they get elected?
In ancient China, for thousands of years, becoming a member of the powerful imperial bureaucracy required submitting to a standardized test. It was meant to weed out the unfit and foolish, proving that officials were learned, cultured men.
The British explorers and traders who saw the system in action thought it might be a nice replacement for their bureaucratic systems, which were based on patronage, nepotism, bribery and heredity. So the East India Company and the government bureaucracy slowly turned into a more-or-less meritocratic system.
Unfortunately, they never applied the same theory to their Parliament or their monarchy.
Let's try a little thought experiment. Imagine we have a test that Canadians must pass before they run for high public office.
What would this test look like? I'd suggest that the results should be independent of charisma. At no time should the testers meet the test-takers directly.
First section: Math, including calculus and trigonometry. A number of questions, demanding that they show their work. (And let's have none of that nonsense about some people being naturally bad at math. It's true, but do you want someone who can't handle numbers in charge of national finances?)
Second section: History, culture and religion. An emphasis on Canadian history is natural, but world history should not be neglected for people who will represent Canada abroad.
And for a multicultural country, understanding at least the basics of all the major world religions seems like a no-brainer.
Third section: Practical science and engineering.
We can take our cues here from the challenges given to university students.
Build a spaghetti bridge that can support at least five kilograms. Assemble a two-stroke motor from parts, with no instructions. De-bug a piece of computer code. There should be at least two or three such challenges, with the tasks changing every year.
Fourth section: Language. Write an essay in a language other than your mother tongue.
Fifth section: Art. Yes, I want our politicians to create something beautiful or striking. Paint a picture, throw and glaze a pot, design a building, pen a sonnet, improvise a saxophone solo.
Show us you have a soul, damn it!
If handed this test today, I would fail at least three, probably four sections. But I think if I applied myself, I could pass eventually. Most importantly, I think I'd be a better person for having studied and tried.
The goal of such a system should not be to weed out potential candidates.
It should be to ensure that those who do run are wellrounded and informed in key areas.
I'm not sure what a Canada ruled by those who passed such a test would look like, but I'd love to find out.
Matthew Claxton is a reporter for the Langley Advance, a sister paper of the Burnaby NOW.
