Technocracy

[Leoreth]

Isn't this what a meritocracy is?

In my understanding, technocracy is a special form of meritocracy. Meritocracy means "rule by the most qualified", while technocracy specifies in what you have to be qualified.

 

[AlpsStranger]

We don't need this.

What we do need is more scientific realism from the public and leaders.

Science can tell us what does what, but I don't think it can tell us which outcome we should prefer. A pure technocrat might rightly say that making soylent green out of 10% of the population is the best solution to structural unemployment, for instance. Obviously, this is unacceptable for many reasons and rule is about more than simply maximizing variables in an equation.

 

[Borachio]

True.

But without some kind of educational requirement for politicians, what chance of them being able to make the right kinds of decisions about what we should prefer.

Soylent green. Errrr that was errr. What film was it?

edit: That was the film. Ha!

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Anything would be preferable to Government by those that firmly belong in the Golgafrincham B Arc.

 

[Borachio]

h2g2
I had to look this up. But if not the government of golgafrincham b-arche, then who?

 

[innonimatu]

A democratic technocracy might be worth thinking about. You should have some kind of qualification before you become part of the government. E.G. the German foreign minister (Westerwelle) did not speak English when he got his job. Or we had a minister of defense without serving in the armed forces. Things like that should not be possible.

Tried before. Back in the late 19th/early 20th century many countries had separate requirements both for voters and for candidates. Ranging from being literate to having university degrees or some minimum wealth. Candidates often had higher requirements. I thing that one of the most long-lasting such rules was that of graduates from Oxford and Cambridge having more than one vote to cast in elections, in the UK up to 1949.

All that fell by the wayside, and rightly so - it was all about gaming democracy to retain power. Universal suffrage is so much simpler, and more legitimate.

Also, technocracy was one of the excuses used by fascist/corporatist regimes to claim legitimacy: that they were the "best men" supposedly representing every social group, therefore no elections would be necessary again. Much better to have the superman-chief appoint those people... It's amazing how fascism keeps being resurrected from time to time.

 

[TheLastOne36]

In my understanding, technocracy is a special form of meritocracy. Meritocracy means "rule by the most qualified", while technocracy specifies in what you have to be qualified.

I see.

Judging from some of the comments, this technocracy in practice seems like it would be an extremist version of a meritocratic governing system.

 

[Cutlass]

I see.

Judging from some of the comments, this technocracy in practice seems like it would be an extremist version of a meritocratic governing system.

In theory, it might start off that way. In practice, it would eventually lead to arbitrary decisions concerning who gets to be one of the technocrats, and who the technocrats act to benefit.

 

[Ayatollah So]

No elite group will likely govern well over the long run. The smaller the group who calls the shots, the more likely it is to be corrupted or out of touch.

In other words:

the elite will construct “merit” to mean whatever it needs to mean in order to keep themselves in power.--alexis goldstein

which I plan to make my next signature, after I get bored with the current one.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

h2g2
I had to look this up. But if not the government of golgafrincham b-arche, then who?

By those with a background in Engineering, Maths and Science and not the soft subjects. By people that have gained experience working in the fields they administer to and have some notion as to what is involved: Education Ministers with a background in Education, Defense ministers with Military experience, Home Secretaries with a background in the Police and Judiciary, Chancellors that have managed the financial affaires of large organisations, Health Ministers, who have worked as nurses/doctors/surgeons, rather than simply the motley collection of ex-journalists and lawyers we're cursed with in the United Kingdom.

 

[kramerfan86]

In theory, it might start off that way. In practice, it would eventually lead to arbitrary decisions concerning who gets to be one of the technocrats, and who the technocrats act to benefit.

Lets be frank, that problem pretty much describes what happens to any form of government so long as it exists long enough in a particular country.

 

[Ajidica]

It sounds alot like the Soviet nomenklatura actually.

 

[Cutlass]

Lets be frank, that problem pretty much describes what happens to any form of government so long as it exists long enough in a particular country.

I don't think so. The general level of incompetence we've seen lately can't be described as government by technocrats. Universal suffrage has it's problems, but arbitrary restrictions on votes is generally not one of them. The European Union is worse, but they made a lot of structural errors.

 

[Leoreth]

Describing several institutions of the European Union as "technocratic" wouldn't be too far off in my opinion. That's not a flaw of democracy though, but a sign of its lack.

 

[kramerfan86]

I don't think so. The general level of incompetence we've seen lately can't be described as government by technocrats. Universal suffrage has it's problems, but arbitrary restrictions on votes is generally not one of them. The European Union is worse, but they made a lot of structural errors.

But it is relatively arbitrary who gets to be voted on and who they nominate for positions once they are in office. In the US for instance, sure anyone can run in the primary, but the party can pretty much smother a non-chosen candidate through non-invites to debates and absolutely no funding at all, its utterly arbitrary who the parties allow a true shot to run for office. In parliamentary systems the voters vote for the party, but its utterly arbitrary what people fill those seats that are won by the percentages.

Now Im not saying somehow a non-democratic system is superior, just saying that eventually arbitrary power decisions start infesting just about any system once the powerbrokers entrench themselves into the system.

 

[Cutlass]

There have been a lot of reforms of the systems over the years to try and get a handle on those problems. First, keep in mind that it is in no way possible to create a system run by humans that will not fall off track from time to time. And then move on to what systems do so least, and what you can design that may help. The problem with American politics right now, at it's heart, is that there is vastly too much money in the system. And while the better financed candidate does not inherently win, big discrepancies in financing certainly give a lot of advantage to the money side. second, it's easy to overestimate how much the "power brokers" in the parties are actually calling the shots. 4 years ago Obama was not the first choice of the core of the party insiders of the Democrats, Hillary was. And now Romney really isn't all that liked by much of the Republican party, but they simply could not find a candidate they liked better.

 

[innonimatu]

Describing several institutions of the European Union as "technocratic" wouldn't be too far off in my opinion. That's not a flaw of democracy though, but a sign of its lack.

The European Union has, in this, been very much an offshoot of the policies carried across Europe. Namely, that everything pertaining to "the economy" is "off limits" from politics. It isn't, of course, that is just a political option to not change the economic arrangements, but the people involved pretend that it is a form of technocracy so as to avoid any discussion that might endanger their own place at the top. That has always been the purpose of "technocracy" in politics.

Or, as Ayatollah So put it:

In other words:

the elite will construct “merit” to mean whatever it needs to mean in order to keep themselves in power.--alexis goldstein

which I plan to make my next signature, after I get bored with the current one.

(btw, that's a good quote, but Steven Brust's books also deserves all the attention they can get! )

 

[Traitorfish]

Basically, a Technocracy is a government...

Pass.