February 13, 2005
Meritocratic democracy
The world has two kinds of people - those who like democracy, those who don't like democracy, and those who can't count. ok - bad joke, but what is equally bad is that those who are against democracy point out to the efficiency of the private sector where even large corporations are managed by an executive that is more often than not
selected meritocratically. Why not then also have politicians selected meritocratically instead of democratically they ask.
The argument goes on - does not democracy aspire towards meritocracy - that is, is it not the intent of the people to elect the most able, the most meritorious person? Why not do the full thing then, and have a political system of meritocracy?
The goal of this post is to counter the very basis of the above question - caused by a lack of understanding of the various power-structures in a democracy. And also point out that this so-called fully-meritocratic system has actually not been tried anywhere - even in the private sector. Further, that it does not even make any sense.
Let us go over the current and existing systems. In the political sector, we have a three-way balance of power. We have the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. The legislature enacts laws. The executive "manages" the state under the framework of laws. The judiciary arbitrates the disputes that arise from the people following or not following the laws.
Out of these - both the executive (comprising the civil service) and the judiciary (comprising the judges) have a meritocratic structure. The legislature, however, is not meritocratic in the least. It is comprised of people who are "popularly" elected. And these legislature guys enjoy control over the executive - the various secretaries heading the various civil service departments report to some cabinet minister or the prime-minister/president (who is also sometimes called the chief-executive for that reason), as also over the judiciary - where many top judicial posts are appointed by the prime-minister/president.
So the argument could be specialized to - why not have a meritocratic legislature as well?
For this, we need to look at the private sector counterpart. Corporations. In fact, the annual revenues of many top Fortune 500 companies dwarf many national GDPs, so it's not a toy comparison.
A corporation has a two-way power structure. One is the board of directors - this is the "legislature". The second is the executive (which includes employees at all levels, not just managerial), headed by the CEO. This "executive", inspite of its name, is both the executive and the judiciary of the corporation. Now, the simile does not just end there - the only tier that is meritocratic is the executive. The board of directors is not - it is decided on the basis of ownership of the company. If I own 30% of the company - I more or less control 30% of the seats on the board of directors.
Does it make sense for one to demand that the board of directors be "meritocratic"? It does not - because ultimately those who own the company should be able to decide the direction of the company, the broad high level path it should follow.
Why should the corporation of a nation state be any different?
selected meritocratically. Why not then also have politicians selected meritocratically instead of democratically they ask.
The argument goes on - does not democracy aspire towards meritocracy - that is, is it not the intent of the people to elect the most able, the most meritorious person? Why not do the full thing then, and have a political system of meritocracy?
The goal of this post is to counter the very basis of the above question - caused by a lack of understanding of the various power-structures in a democracy. And also point out that this so-called fully-meritocratic system has actually not been tried anywhere - even in the private sector. Further, that it does not even make any sense.
Let us go over the current and existing systems. In the political sector, we have a three-way balance of power. We have the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. The legislature enacts laws. The executive "manages" the state under the framework of laws. The judiciary arbitrates the disputes that arise from the people following or not following the laws.
Out of these - both the executive (comprising the civil service) and the judiciary (comprising the judges) have a meritocratic structure. The legislature, however, is not meritocratic in the least. It is comprised of people who are "popularly" elected. And these legislature guys enjoy control over the executive - the various secretaries heading the various civil service departments report to some cabinet minister or the prime-minister/president (who is also sometimes called the chief-executive for that reason), as also over the judiciary - where many top judicial posts are appointed by the prime-minister/president.
So the argument could be specialized to - why not have a meritocratic legislature as well?
For this, we need to look at the private sector counterpart. Corporations. In fact, the annual revenues of many top Fortune 500 companies dwarf many national GDPs, so it's not a toy comparison.
A corporation has a two-way power structure. One is the board of directors - this is the "legislature". The second is the executive (which includes employees at all levels, not just managerial), headed by the CEO. This "executive", inspite of its name, is both the executive and the judiciary of the corporation. Now, the simile does not just end there - the only tier that is meritocratic is the executive. The board of directors is not - it is decided on the basis of ownership of the company. If I own 30% of the company - I more or less control 30% of the seats on the board of directors.
Does it make sense for one to demand that the board of directors be "meritocratic"? It does not - because ultimately those who own the company should be able to decide the direction of the company, the broad high level path it should follow.
Why should the corporation of a nation state be any different?
