Some PAS supporters were at one time hinting that their candidate for the soon to be held Kuala Terengganu by-election would be a candidate with a PhD and also an associate professor. Very scholastic, indeed!

Does this mean that a person with such academic qualifications can become a good politician? Not necessarily, I suppose. Again, this reminds many of us of the rhetoricof form over substance – the mindset that has besieged us Malaysians for so long.

When Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton went on their campaign trails, rarely did the press or their supporters highlight that they are lawyers who had studied at prominent universities. The people in this developed country were looking for more than that - the substance over the form and not the academic titles a politician carries.

Academic credentials are an asset for a politician but this does not necessarily mean that he can be an effective politician. Some go all out to have academic titles attached to their names so as to feel that they are ‘educated’.

The prime minister of India, Manmohan Singh, holds a doctorate from Oxford. The Indian people, generally, have forgotten this qualification of his and hardly ever address him with the ‘Dr’ title. It is more of his economic prowess, political acumen and experience as the former finance minister of India and later the prime minister that makes him shine in his career. In other words it is his genuine ability and charisma that count in the minds of Indian voters.

In politics, charisma counts more than academic titles. Many academics who went into politics have failed as most of them have been trained to be too straightforward in their approach to issues. An academic, for this reason, may not necessarily become a good leader. Malaysians should start shedding the mindset that with high qualifications one can become effective leaders.

This perception is wide off the mark. Most of the renowned and effective political leaders of the past throughout the world never had a PhD and were never university professors.

Let us have the facts correct. A person with a PhD does not necessarily mean that he is a know-all person. He may be well-read and speaks and writes logically and scientifically, but this may not help him in politics. A PhD only reflects research and ability into a single area of knowledge and specialisation.

It is indeed a very narrow and specialised knowledge and 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 and he lives only with the theories of knowledge which would not work in the political world. Being an academic, he is usually too theoretical, academic and may speak with a rational mind.

But this is not what politics is all about. 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 behaviour.

Very few exemplary academics make good politicians. The late Prof Dr Syed Hussein Al-Alatas and Prof Dr Marimuthu of MIC and even Prof Dr Chandra Muzaffar never actually made it in politics, though they managed to make some impact at the start. Academics are usually too idealistic and they always would want things to be done the way they wish them to be done. They keep to their ideals and seldom would want to compromise.

This does not work in politics of the illiterate and the semi-illiterate and also when it comes to the grassroots. 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 in politics 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.

In fact, in a literate and developed society, the people need not have to be convinced by political rhetoric and promises. They want to see things delivered and therefore they seek leaders who speak to them the truth. A political scientist may, however, be a good observer of politics, writes and comments about politics but may fail when he joins the people in the game of politics.

To become a politician needs more than a narrow sphere of knowledge. He must be rhetorically convincing though it may not carry any substance. The person must first of all have the political appeal, and is willing to work for the people and accept human frailties in life. A good politician must be patient and be willing to accept criticism 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 the political circus.

Thus, the idea that a candidate has a PhD and is an associate professor does not actually translate into success in politics. For this coming by-election, PAS should field a candidate who can make a rhetorical impact in the parliament house – nothing less than this.

The current political scenario is that the people would want a figure who can speak in the parliament on their behalf and do a better check-and-balance errand in a healthy democracy. A win for the opposition is not going to dent the incumbent state government, but will be another voice for them in the parliament. A win for the incumbent is going to be a moral booster for the flaccid Barisan Nasional.

Readers can make an intelligent guess at who the best person PAS should field as a candidate this time around.