Of yearnings like probity!

I dont know how I got there, considering I dont really read The Telegraph of Kolkata, but somehow I managed to stumble upon this (http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110426/jsp/opinion/story_13899511.jsp). The author was trying to make a point about what constitutes a responsible member of "civil society", in the wake of the protests, et al that were organized in New Delhi by Anna Hazare (if you haven't heard of him yet, the rest of this piece might not be the best place to get started either!). By corollary, it set me thinking on the issue of "probity in public life", and the line that separates the proletariat from the "public figures".
What, however, would happen if people aspiring to be "public figures" were to be required to pass tests of certain basic skills? What I'm proposing is not very different from the equivalent of the Civil Services exam, except for not being so onerous. What if every single person desirous of representing the larger populace (and hence, serving the public as they apparently aspire to!) were required to take an exam in an Indian language of their choice, testing them on their basic understanding of the philosophies underlying principal governance systems, of the division of powers between different levels of government, maybe world history (at least superficially), and possibly a few other relevant topics (I listed the ones that came to my mind right away!). Wouldn't it provide us with a choice of at least slightly better informed "public figures"? Logistically, it doesn't appear to be a very difficult thing to conduct, and the wider the choice of languages available for testing, the more inclusive the class of public representatives would appear to be. Passing this exam every 20 years or so could be used as a pre-requisite to putting oneself up for candidature.
If this were to be used as a qualification criterion & any pending litigation for criminal charges as a disqualification criterion, I feel reasonably confident that as a society, we could end up being represented by a more savoury bunch than that which Andre Beteille has depicted in the Telegraph op-ed. I also realize that the disqualification criterion could be misused to rob potentially great leaders of the opportunity to govern, but then it's not trivial either in our judicial system to bring someone to face criminal charges, to begin with. More to the point, however small the possibility of a person having committed a crime, erring on the side of caution only pushes more aspiring leaders to embrace the ideal of probity that we're railing towards.