At what thing would people who govern be competent at to be considered competent?

For any regular readers of the Financial Times, the irony of quoting Simon Kuper in an appeal to competence is surely a bit rich, given his open, haughty, contempt for people who make their livings working at jobs that require physical competence to create value, vs. sustaining cognitive dissonance to achieve political ends.

But the question of what would "qualify," someone for governance is a useful one. Arguably, the bar for representing the interests of a constituency is very low, but mere democratic election does not provide enough confidence to legitimize the pervasive powers of social intervention representatives and modern public employees grant themselves. It's not clear what would confer legitimacy on these new technologically enhanced powers, but it's becoming evident that a ballot is decreasingly sufficient.