Neonanocyborgasm
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,695
We recently had a thread on communism which diverged into a discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of employing a meritocracy for governance. It gave me pause for thought, as I had never given it a thorough examination. I decided to do some research on the matter, and had some realizations.
My contention is how to prevent democracy from descending into demagoguery. Democracy enfranchises all the people, and this includes those who are uneducated and foolish, who may cast votes not only for poor candidates of office, but worse, be led by demagogues who cause them to support policies that are contrary to their own interests, and which would disadvantage them.
Meritocracy is defined as appointments to positions of leadership based on merit. The definition of merit has been the cause of some contention, and will probably never be agreed upon. In this case, appointments are made to government posts, in an effort to maximize the efficiency of the state. I had always assumed that meritocracy was simply theoretical, and that no regime of this sort had ever existed. After doing some investigation, I realized that there have been historical meritocratic regimes, and their outcomes are quite instructive.
It should be noted that meritocracy was never the basis of an entire system of government. It was just one principle, among many, and one that was not always followed consistently. It was more of a cultural understanding, and there was never a specific body or person that enforced it entirely.
The two regimes that I will mention are Ancient Sparta and the Kingdom of Qin and its heir, the Imperial Qin Dynasty of China.
Sparta's selection of merit was based exclusively on military ability. A newborn baby was initially inspected by an elder and examined for any physical imperfections that could be detrimental to physical fitness. If deemed unworthy, the baby would be abandoned. Thereafter, from age 7, they were enrolled in a special military training system, in which they were subjected to the most extreme conditions, designed to harden them for war and perhaps eliminate those boys who were either unable to unwilling to endure these hardships. Upon graduation at age 20, they joined a regiment in which they were required to perform certain functions, such as providing for their meals. Even after graduating, young men were constantly under the threat of dismissal from both their regiment and even society, if they lapsed even slightly. If they showed any hesitation in battle, or failed to provide for the common mess, or fail in even the slightest way to do any one of a number of their obligations, they could be subject to dismissal from their regiment. That was tantamount to exile from Spartan society. The result of this rigor was that, over time, there were fewer and fewer Spartan soldiers. Combined with casualties in war, the Spartan state, for this and other reasons, lost its most vital and pressing asset, and so became weakened and conquered.
With this, it is clear and ironic that the Spartan system of merit, designed to produce the most powerful military machine in its time, actually led to its demise. It indicates to me that applying a meritocratic system too extensively can lead to disaster.
The Kingdom of Qin was one of several competing states during China's Warring States Period, and eventually conquered the rest, founding China's first imperial dynasty. Key to its success was an embrace of the philosophy of Legalism. Legalism held that all people, outside the ruler, were equal before the law, and that the law should be designed to punish transgressors of the state, and reward those who helped the cause of the state. Implicit in this, was the notion that those who could best serve the interests of the state deserved reward by appointment to key government positions, thereby creating a meritocracy. Because of its focused determination, this system was highly effective in its goals of creating a strong, powerful government with a powerful military, capable of overcoming its rivals. In fact, it is not that the system of merit was not effective in selecting men of merit, but that it was too effective. Initially, this swept away feudalism, as men of talent replaced men born to priviledge, aristocrats. In time, however, competition became increasingly more ruthless, such that candidates resorted to killing their rivals, or sabotaging them so as to make them appear less worthy. Combined with an encouragement to inform on those thought inferior to their posts, the state gradually took on the trappings of totalitarianism. The state eventually came to devour itself, and within only a few years after the death of the first emperor, the nation was consumed in a civil war.
It should be noted that meritocratic elements were never eliminated from China. Confucianism, which replaced Legalism as the guiding principle of the state, still advocated appointment on merit. However, this was limited more to education, and was eventually applied to civil service exams. Confucianism held that education should be open to any who wished to learn, and that a sufficiently educated man was indistinguishable from an aristocrat, while an uneducated aristocrat was as good as a peasant. So meritocracy came to be limited to education, not to everything.
With these two paradigms in mind, it should be obvious what the result of such a system would be. Interested only in people's service to the state, the state empowers those people with skills useful to the state. Those not empowered as such come to be exploited, with the overriding concern being the survival and expansion of the state, and not with the prosperity and living of its people. In Sparta's case, it was a large population of permanent serfs, called Helots, who were regularly brutalized and humiliated to keep them in line. (This ironically limited Sparta's ability to wage war, as soldiers were obligated to remain home to prevent a Helot revolt.) In the Qin State's case, thousands of people were likewise enserfed for all manner of construction projects, killed in the process.
My conclusion through all this is that meritocracy is not a useful solution to demagoguery. It simply produces a state that exists solely for its own survival and aggrandizement, with its people to be exploited. Instead, what needs to happen to prevent demagoguery is a well informed electorate, and that involves education. Unfortunately, American public education is something of a basketcase these days, and its paltry teaching, I contend, is not in keeping with the demands of decisions required of American voters.
Thoughts?
My contention is how to prevent democracy from descending into demagoguery. Democracy enfranchises all the people, and this includes those who are uneducated and foolish, who may cast votes not only for poor candidates of office, but worse, be led by demagogues who cause them to support policies that are contrary to their own interests, and which would disadvantage them.
Meritocracy is defined as appointments to positions of leadership based on merit. The definition of merit has been the cause of some contention, and will probably never be agreed upon. In this case, appointments are made to government posts, in an effort to maximize the efficiency of the state. I had always assumed that meritocracy was simply theoretical, and that no regime of this sort had ever existed. After doing some investigation, I realized that there have been historical meritocratic regimes, and their outcomes are quite instructive.
It should be noted that meritocracy was never the basis of an entire system of government. It was just one principle, among many, and one that was not always followed consistently. It was more of a cultural understanding, and there was never a specific body or person that enforced it entirely.
The two regimes that I will mention are Ancient Sparta and the Kingdom of Qin and its heir, the Imperial Qin Dynasty of China.
Sparta's selection of merit was based exclusively on military ability. A newborn baby was initially inspected by an elder and examined for any physical imperfections that could be detrimental to physical fitness. If deemed unworthy, the baby would be abandoned. Thereafter, from age 7, they were enrolled in a special military training system, in which they were subjected to the most extreme conditions, designed to harden them for war and perhaps eliminate those boys who were either unable to unwilling to endure these hardships. Upon graduation at age 20, they joined a regiment in which they were required to perform certain functions, such as providing for their meals. Even after graduating, young men were constantly under the threat of dismissal from both their regiment and even society, if they lapsed even slightly. If they showed any hesitation in battle, or failed to provide for the common mess, or fail in even the slightest way to do any one of a number of their obligations, they could be subject to dismissal from their regiment. That was tantamount to exile from Spartan society. The result of this rigor was that, over time, there were fewer and fewer Spartan soldiers. Combined with casualties in war, the Spartan state, for this and other reasons, lost its most vital and pressing asset, and so became weakened and conquered.
With this, it is clear and ironic that the Spartan system of merit, designed to produce the most powerful military machine in its time, actually led to its demise. It indicates to me that applying a meritocratic system too extensively can lead to disaster.
The Kingdom of Qin was one of several competing states during China's Warring States Period, and eventually conquered the rest, founding China's first imperial dynasty. Key to its success was an embrace of the philosophy of Legalism. Legalism held that all people, outside the ruler, were equal before the law, and that the law should be designed to punish transgressors of the state, and reward those who helped the cause of the state. Implicit in this, was the notion that those who could best serve the interests of the state deserved reward by appointment to key government positions, thereby creating a meritocracy. Because of its focused determination, this system was highly effective in its goals of creating a strong, powerful government with a powerful military, capable of overcoming its rivals. In fact, it is not that the system of merit was not effective in selecting men of merit, but that it was too effective. Initially, this swept away feudalism, as men of talent replaced men born to priviledge, aristocrats. In time, however, competition became increasingly more ruthless, such that candidates resorted to killing their rivals, or sabotaging them so as to make them appear less worthy. Combined with an encouragement to inform on those thought inferior to their posts, the state gradually took on the trappings of totalitarianism. The state eventually came to devour itself, and within only a few years after the death of the first emperor, the nation was consumed in a civil war.
It should be noted that meritocratic elements were never eliminated from China. Confucianism, which replaced Legalism as the guiding principle of the state, still advocated appointment on merit. However, this was limited more to education, and was eventually applied to civil service exams. Confucianism held that education should be open to any who wished to learn, and that a sufficiently educated man was indistinguishable from an aristocrat, while an uneducated aristocrat was as good as a peasant. So meritocracy came to be limited to education, not to everything.
With these two paradigms in mind, it should be obvious what the result of such a system would be. Interested only in people's service to the state, the state empowers those people with skills useful to the state. Those not empowered as such come to be exploited, with the overriding concern being the survival and expansion of the state, and not with the prosperity and living of its people. In Sparta's case, it was a large population of permanent serfs, called Helots, who were regularly brutalized and humiliated to keep them in line. (This ironically limited Sparta's ability to wage war, as soldiers were obligated to remain home to prevent a Helot revolt.) In the Qin State's case, thousands of people were likewise enserfed for all manner of construction projects, killed in the process.
My conclusion through all this is that meritocracy is not a useful solution to demagoguery. It simply produces a state that exists solely for its own survival and aggrandizement, with its people to be exploited. Instead, what needs to happen to prevent demagoguery is a well informed electorate, and that involves education. Unfortunately, American public education is something of a basketcase these days, and its paltry teaching, I contend, is not in keeping with the demands of decisions required of American voters.
Thoughts?
