GOV. MARK SANFORD has an important opportunity to advance his campaign to restructure state government when he appoints an interim replacement for indicted Agriculture Commissioner Charles Sharpe.

It’s always tempting simply to name the top deputy in an agency as a caretaker when the director must suddenly be replaced. The temptation is all the greater in a case such as this, when an acquittal would bring Mr. Sharpe immediately back to his post.

Mr. Sanford should instead seize this opportunity to demonstrate to the public how responsibly a governor would act were he allowed to appoint the person who runs the state Agriculture Department.

The first thing Mr. Sanford should do is ignore partisan politics. As he correctly argues, there is nothing about the job that should be political. Like the person who runs the Corrections Department or the Commerce Department, this post calls simply for a good administrator who is knowledgeable in the field.

For that reason, one of the people Mr. Sanford should consider is Newberry farmer John Long, the clearly superior candidate who lost an extremely close race to Mr. Sharpe in 2002. His appointment would signal voters that the governor puts qualifications above party label.

Of course, it’s possible that others are better qualified. One reason we shouldn’t elect agency directors is that the process, which usually rewards the best politician rather than the most capable administrator, often discourages the best administrators from even stepping forward.

That’s not the only reason we shouldn’t elect agency directors. Doing so means there are more candidates on the ballot than most voters have the time, energy or inclination to thoroughly review.

That seems clearly to have been the case with Mr. Sharpe, whose race was overshadowed by more important races for governor, attorney general and U.S. Senate, not to mention legislative contests and other state agency jobs on the ballot.

Even if it turns out that Mr. Sharpe is innocent — that there was not a direct connection between any money he accepted and his actions, and that he did nothing improper in moving around some of the money — the undisputed facts in the indictment are disturbing: That he would defend an operation in which roosters are forced to fight to the death should trouble all South Carolinians. Indeed, we believe that Mr. Sharpe should resign immediately, for that reason alone.

Anyone who would even associate with the people who promote such a barbaric activity would have to have incredibly poor judgment. We doubt most governors, who put appointees through a thorough vetting process, would appoint someone like that to any important post.

This embarrassing case points to at least one more problem with electing agency directors. People who have to win an election have an added burden that people who are appointed don’t have: They must raise large sums of money to run a campaign. While most candidates resist (as Mr. Sharpe may have), that burden makes it tempting to trade favors for that money.

That’s a chance we have to take when selecting legislators and a governor; the public election of those officials is an essential part of our system of self-governance. It is not a chance we have to take when selecting people to run state agencies.