We love credentials. We frame them, recite them, and deploy them like shields whenever questions are asked. Degrees. Diplomas. Titles. Certifications. They have become the modern shorthand for competence.
But let me ask a question that makes many uncomfortable: when governing a people, which matters more, the paper qualification, or the lived experience?
Before anyone clutches pearls, let me be clear: qualifications matter. Education matters. Training matters. A society that dismisses learning does so at its own peril. Paper qualifications signal discipline, exposure to theory, and a willingness to be assessed. They are not meaningless.
But neither are they magic!
Experience can be real, lived, sometimes messy. In fact, experience is the great teacher. It is the classroom you cannot skip, the exam you cannot cram for, the lesson you only learn by doing and, yes, sometimes by failing.
A person can hold degrees in public administration and still have no idea how policies land on the backs of ordinary people.
One can study economics and never miss a meal. One can master political theory and never navigate unemployment, migration, community organising, or survival outside air-conditioned offices.
So, when we ask, “Who should serve in government?” the answer should not be reduced to a lazy binary.
Do we want the most qualified on paper, or the most capable in practice?
Better yet: why do we pretend these must be mutually exclusive?
The danger lies at both extremes. Paper without perspective produces arrogance. Experience without preparation can produce chaos. But experience paired with humility, and education paired with accountability — now that is leadership.
Let us also be honest about how “qualifications” are sometimes weaponised. Too often, they are used not to uplift standards but to exclude voices, particularly those who learned outside formal institutions, those who came up through communities rather than corridors of power. The school of hard knocks, as we say.
A farmer who understands land use, a teacher who understands overcrowded classrooms, a nurse who understands public health beyond policy and memos. These are not lesser forms of knowledge simply because they do not always come with honours.
Governance is not an academic exercise. It is applied knowledge. It is decisions with consequences. It is theory meeting reality — and reality usually wins.
So perhaps the better question is not who has the paper, but:
* Who understands the people?
* Who has demonstrated judgment under pressure?
* Who has learned from mistakes?
* Who knows when to listen?
If I were hiring for the government, I would not choose between qualifications and experience. I would demand both, and I would prioritise the wisdom to know that no certificate replaces accountability, and no experience excuses incompetence.
Degrees open doors.
Experience teaches you what to do once you walk through them.
And in government, the people pay the price when either is missing.
This is not an argument against education. It is an argument against credential worship. It is a reminder that leadership is not proven on paper alone, but in service.
The people deserve nothing less.
The eyes are WATCHING
The opinions presented in this content belong to the author and may not necessarily reflect the perspectives or editorial stance of iWitness News. Opinion pieces can be submitted to [email protected].