Meritocracy Meritocracy Matthew F. Hale Category="Forms of government"Category="Political neologisms"As the suffix "-cracy" implies, meritocracy is strictly speaking a system of Government based on rule by ability (merit) rather than by wealth or social position. In this context, "merit" means roughly intelligence plus effort. However, the word "meritocracy" is now often used to describe a type of Society where wealth, income, and Social status are assigned through Competition, on the assumption that the winners do indeed deserve (merit) their resulting advantage. As a result, the word has acquired a Connotation of Social Darwinism, and is used to describe aggressively competitive societies, with large Inequality of income and wealth, contrasted with egalitarian societies.

Meritocratic governments and organisations stress talent, formal education, and competence, rather than existing differences such as Social class, ethnicity, or sex. In practice, research on Social mobility indicates that all these supposedly neutral criteria favour the children of those who are already privileged in some way.

In a Representative democracy where power is theoretically in the hands of the elected representatives, meritocratic elements include the use of expert consultants to help formulate policies, and a meritocratic Civil service to implement them. The perennial problem in advocating meritocracy is defining exactly what one means by merit.

Origin of term

The term was first used, in a pejorative sense, in Michael Young's 1958 book Rise of the Meritocracy, which is set in a future in which one's social place is determined by IQ plus effort. In the book, this social system ultimately leads to a social revolution in which the masses overthrow the elite, who have become arrogant and disconnected from the feelings of the public.

Despite the negative origin of the word, there are many who believe that a meritocratic system is a good thing for society. Proponents of meritocracy argue that a meritocratic system is more just and more productive than other systems, and that it allows for an end to distinctions based on such things as sex and race (though social classes would still exist).

Young's central criticism of meritocracy was that a system in which social position is determined by objective characteristics would still be inegalitarian and unstable. There have since been other lines of criticism; proponents of Critical theory often argue that merit is defined by the power elite simply to legitimise a system in which social status is actually determined by class, birth, and wealth.

Often, opponents of the concept of meritocracy argue that characteristics such as intelligence or effort are simply impossible to measure accurately (for example, one may ask "Who was more intelligent, Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein?"). Therefore, in their view, any implementation of meritocracy necessarily involves a high degree of guesswork and is inherently flawed.

Individual proponents

Confucius

"In teaching there should be no distinction of classes." - Analects XV. 39. tr. Legge

Many western admirers of Confucius, like Voltaire or H. G. Creel, have pointed out an innovative and revolutionary idea of Confucius': he replaced the nobility of blood with one of virtue. Jūnzǐ (君子), which had meant "noble man," slowly took on a new meaning in his sayings - something like the English "Gentleman." A virtuous plebeian who cultivates his qualities could be a "gentleman", whilst a shameless son of a King was only a "small man." That he allowed any kind of student to be his disciple (his teachings were intended to train future rulers) is a clear indication that he didn't wholly support feudal structures in Chinese society.

Han Feizi

In addition to Confucius, another ancient Chinese philosopher of the same period (the Warring States) advocated a meritocratic system of government and society. This was Han Feizi who was famous as being the foremost proponent of the School of Law (otherwise known as the philosophy of Legalism). The central tenet of his argument was the absolute rule of law, though there were also numerous meritocratic elements. Another Legalist, Shang Yang implemented Legalist and meritocratic reforms in the state of Qin by abolishing the aristocracy and promoting individuals based on skill, intelligence, and initiative. This led to the armies of the Qin having a critical edge over the other nations that adhered to old aristocratic systems of government. Legalism, along with its anti-aristocratic, pro-meritocratic ideals, remained a key part of Chinese philosophy and politics for another two millennia, although after the Qin Dynasty it was heavily diluted.

Genghis Khan

Meritocracy was the primary basis for selection of chiefs and generals in the Mongol Empire. Genghis Khan chose whomever was talented and fit for his military chain of command. He even trusted generals and soldiers from opponents' armies if they showed loyalty to their leaders. For example, Genghis Khan's general Jebe had been an enemy soldier who had shot Genghis's horse in battle before he became Great Khan.

Napoleon

Napoleonic (Revolutionary) France is also sometimes considered to have been meritocratic. After the revolution of 1792 hardly a member of the former elite remained. When Napoleon rose to power, therefore, there was no ancient base from which to draw his staff, and he had to choose the people he thought best for the job, including officers from his army, revolutionaries who had been in the people's assembly, and even some former aristocrats such as prime minister Talleyrand.

A later non-meritocratic practice, however, was the appointment of family members and Corsican friends to important positions (specifically regional leadership); loyalty may have been a more important factor than sheer merit in performance, a common case in political situations.

Meritocratic states

Singapore

Among modern nation-states, the Republic of Singapore perhaps aspires to be a pure Meritocracy, with its emphasis on identifying and grooming bright young citizens for positions of leadership. There is also a strong emphasis on academic credentials; these are seen as objective measures of both intelligence and effort. Its unwillingness to tolerate political dissent casts some skepticism on its claims of meritocracy, in that political conformity may be one measure of merit, but it attempts to offer greater meritocratic opportunities to its Chinese mercantile minority than was possible elsewhere.

Meritocracy is a central political concept in Singapore, and is at the heart of its founding myth. Specifically, Singapore is seen to have been "expelled" from neighbouring Malaysia in 1965 as a result of the unwillingness of its majority immigrant groups (especially the ethnic Chinese) to accept the special position of the indigenous communities (especially the Malays). The (federal) Malaysian government had argued for a system which would give special privileges to the Malays as part of their birthright as an indigenous people. In time, the federal government came to implement an Affirmative action policy that favoured the numerically preponderant but economically backward indigenous groups.

The Singapore government argued for the equality of all citizens of Malaysia, with places in universities, government contracts, political appointments, etc., going to the most deserving candidate, rather than to one chosen on the basis of connections or ethnic background. In the ensuing conflict between State and Federal governments, Singapore was expelled, and became an independent city-state.

The conflict between an economically dominant minority, in this case the Chinese, and less successful indigenous population, in this case the Malay majority, is echoed around the world, for example with the Jews in Germany or the Armenians in Turkey. (The plights of these middleman minorities are documented at length by the economist Thomas Sowell.) Although ethnic Chinese are periodically massacred in other countries of Southeast Asia, Singapore offers a relatively peaceful if somewhat authoritarian alternative.

Grand Duchy of Finland

Another example is the 19th century Finland, which was formally ruled by an autocrat, though in practice governing was left to the educated class. Although ancestry and inherited wealth influenced one's educational opportunities, education and not ancestry was the principal requirement for admittance to, and promotion within, the civil service and government. Well into the mid-20th century, academic degrees remained important factors for politicians asking for the electorate's confidence.

Meritocratic civilization

Western civilization: The Anglosphere and Western Europe

Western civilization as a whole is based largely on principles of meritocracy, the primary difference between the Anglosphere and Western Europe being that Anglo countries focus on merit regardless of inherited advantages while Continental countries prefer to assess merit after giving roughly the same opportunities to everyone. The principles of equality under the law, the system of Common law, the prevalence of the Market system which rewards merit (however achieved), the democratic system whereby citizens can choose those they believe to be of the greatest merit, and the strong constitutional emphasis on Individual rights are all unique developments of Western Civilization which have the effect of approximating meritocracy better than traditional civilizations. Although a conflict exists between those who believe that everyone should have the same opportunities and those who believe the most capable should rule regardless of how they came to be the most capable, Western Civilization is distinguished by its focus on individual merit over collectivism or state authority.

See also

External links