MORE EMOTION AND raw political energy are being put into proposals to let the governor appoint the adjutant general than any other proposal for bringing our government into the 21st century.

And there is no question in our minds that this is not only an acceptable but an essential change. As one retired general officer reminded a Senate public hearing last month, the rest of the nation abandoned the idea of electing military leaders around the time of the Civil War; the rest of the world has likewise come around to our nation’s way of thinking — that merit, not politics, should determine military leaders, and that military leaders should be directly and immediately accountable to civilian leaders.

But so much energy is being poured into the debate over who selects the adjutant general that a lot of people are overlooking a far more important question, which goes back to that notion of merit selection: that is, what we should require as a prerequisite for leading our state’s National Guard.

Currently, the only requirement to be elected adjutant general is being a registered voter in this state. You don’t even have to have military experience, much less a minimum rank. That’s extraordinary, particularly when you consider the amount of raw firepower this person commands, and that his level of competence has, literally, life-and-death consequences.

Whether we allow the governor to appoint future adjutants general or continue to elect them, this must be changed.

No one should be allowed to hold the position of adjutant general unless he or she is a member or retired member of the S.C. National Guard who has achieved a federally recognized rank of at least colonel (the rank immediately below brigadier general). And adjutants general should not be allowed to remain in office after they lose their federal military recognition, which usually occurs when they reach the mandatory military retirement age of 64.

Many other qualifications merit consideration, and many details remain to be worked out about terms of office and nominating panels and the like. But these baseline requirements should not be debatable. And lawmakers should not delay approving them. They should either be passed as separate legislation this session or added to a constitutional question on the ballot this fall, as a Senate panel proposed Tuesday.

Requiring certain minimum qualifications for important positions is hardly a novel concept. Lawmakers have tacitly acknowledged the need for clearly defined qualifications for the leader of our state’s military. State law requires that in the event of a vacancy, the governor must appoint a replacement who holds at least the rank of lieutenant colonel and has served at least 15 years in the S.C. National Guard.

Indeed, the Legislature sets minimal qualifications for positions where the need for qualifications pales in comparison. The agriculture commissioner, for example, is required by law to “have a competent knowledge of agriculture, manufacturing and general industries, commerce, chemistry and publicity.”

If it is essential for the director of the Department of Agriculture to meet certain minimal job requirements, how much more important is it to have clearly defined qualifications for the person in charge of preparing thousands of South Carolinians for war?