Feed

16/7/26 - Meritocracy

The word 'meritocracy' seems to have become a bad word recently. Perhapes it always has been. And given what most vocal supporters of it seem to mean by the term, I tend to agree. Work hard, be competent, and you'll be rewarded, generally with positions of power. Most of the criticism of this perception tends to be focussed on the fact that this idea, in the world we live in, is a fantasy. Hard work and competence aren't rewarded - being born into privelege is rewarded, and then guarded jealousy. There is a lot to be said about this, but that's not the point I want to make here.
I do happen to believe in the value in a different interpretation of the word 'meritocracy'. The generally accepted definition is... fine I guess, but I feel it puts the cart before the horse. When I think of meritocracy, I think of the simple notion that important roles should be filled by people who are qualified to do so.
This notion is equally at odds with the reality we live in, when we so routinely see climate deniers being assigned ministers of environment, health quacks being made secretaries of health, podcast bros being put in charge of all sorts of government agencies, and Tony Fricking Abbott making himself minister for women. Because this has been a thing much longer than the current regime in the US - even during a time when we broadly thought that sober heads were prevailing, and open fascists and authoritarians were not making a mockery of every institution by simply appointing their incompetent cronies and lackies to every conceivable position.
Now to be clear, I don't know how to implement this. I'm not going to pretend I can come up with a complete and flawless political sysetm from my armchair. I could throw some ideas at the wall, but I think these things need to be worked out iteratively through trial, error, consultation and evidence. Because I'm not an absolutist about anything, especially this kind of thing. I don't believe you just need to double down on meritocracy and only meritocracy, and as long as your society is maximal on that it will be fine. Every aspect of a society needs to be in conversation with the others. Pure meritocracy, even in the sense I'm talking about, has real issues in terms of representation; if all leaders and officials are chosen through a pure beurocratic system designed to filter them purely on their competence, then democracy suffers. Proper representation and political participation for everyone is just as important.
I'm not quite sure how to finish this post, except maybe to point out that I broadly like institutions like Reserve Banks. Here in Australia it is a body that makes important economic decisions and is fairly sheltered from political interference. The members are chosen on a merit basis. However, they are typically chosen from a pool of CEOs and business leaders, which feels a lot like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse, which just further emphasises the importance of being mindful about how you implement systems.