One of the numerous flaws of the presidential system, is that it requires electing people that, outside of extraordinary circumstances, can't be said to have had any relevant experience. This is true whether you're looking at mayors, governors or presidents. Any system which has a direct election for the Big Boss at that level of government inherently shares this flaw.
Now, you might look at that and say (for the American context, anyway), "Well, okay, the natural progression is to be a mayor, then level up to deal with more people and higher stakes and become a governor, and then you can say 'I've done this job twice before and I know what it's like to experience a huge jump in responsibility' and therefore it is possible to obtain relevant experience". The thing is, I don't think you can draw that kind of comparison. The relationships between all different political actors are just wholly different whether you're a mayor, governor or president, even if it's possible to have a similar links between councils and mayors as between governors/presidents and state/federal houses.
(In the Westminster system, the prime minister is first among equals. And, also, is the leader of the political party and is expected to do largely the same things whether in or out of government, aside from the question of running the country. Which, of course, is actually something they theoretically do in the sense that it's parliament, not the government, that has the power. Governments matter only insofar as they're able to control parliament; so parliamentary experience is, in a very real way, government experience. You may quibble about this, too, of course. I'm just including it here so you can see how I see the difference.)
Another objection that I could see someone making is "But what about the vice president?" Well, now, I would've suggested this myself once upon a time. But then I watched a movie trailer.
I'm sure there are great many other objections one could make (e.g. White House Chief of Staff) but I'd rather focus the question on what kind of evidence really would be worth looking at to get an idea of whether someone is qualified to be (in particular, the US) president. A degree in political science? public policy? economics? all three? management? (yes, there are degrees in management) public administration? How about a military background? Corporate experience? Being a judge?
(For reference, here's a table of most of the public offices held by the winners and runners up of every US presidential election.)
To my mind, in general sense, you'd want a presidential system candidate to have:
- established experience at winning an election as an incumbent with a political record
- experience at the same level of government as a public actor (so, not a lobbyist)
- experience within the same region of government (this is less relevant for national presidents than for governors or mayors)
- experience as an elected public official
- leadership experience in public service
- all other experience in public service
And that would be a hierarchy, with the top being the most important.
So, what say ye, NSG?
