If we talk about pure meritocracy, which could be created in some incomprehensible way, it must be said immediately that it will not last long and will descend into an aristocracy or an oligarchy.
Suppose a procedure was invented and implemented according to which certain individuals could pass specific tests better than anyone else or demonstrate their maximum competence throughout their lives. Thus, these people would be appointed to the positions of ministers, presidents, deputies, and other high-ranking officials. At first glance, such a system seems very fair and logical: the most competent and talented manage society, making important decisions and guiding the state’s development in the right direction.
The Inevitable Usurpation
However, as soon as this ideal is achieved, a complete and inviolable usurpation of power will occur. Nothing prevents these individuals from conspiring with each other, even if some separation of powers exists, as in typical republics. Ultimately, they could seize power, subsequently consolidating their status legally through changes to laws, the constitution, and other legal documents.
Furthermore, possessing power, such people will inevitably begin to form families that will strive to preserve and pass down this power by inheritance. Gradually, an elite will begin to form, differing from the rest of the citizens not only in their skills and competence but also in privileges passed down from generation to generation. As a result of this process, we will see meritocracy transform into a new form of aristocracy, where power is concentrated in the hands of a narrow circle of people, regardless of their actual merits and abilities. Thus, even in the most ideal system, which from the very beginning relies on the principles of competence and merit, there is a risk of its transformation into a system of hereditary power, where the main factor of success is no longer competence, but origin and family ties.
Ultimately, the ideal of meritocracy can become merely a mask for the creation of a new form of aristocracy, where power and privileges are concentrated in the hands of the few, which contradicts the initial goals and principles of the system.
The “Genius Trusts” Thought Experiment
Okay, suppose this did not happen. Let us suppose something else. A hundred years have passed. Power is elected in a meritocratic way; from time to time, it is “re-elected”.
Over these hundred years, some powerful and influential trust has created specialized institutions for the education of future geniuses. These institutions not only provide education in the field of public administration but also actively engage in shaping the consciousness and ideology of future leaders. It is important to note that this trust primarily directs its efforts toward educating the children of the trust’s owners, thereby creating special conditions for the formation of a kind of “elite reserve”.
In addition, this same trust is actively engaged in the search and selection of so-called “geniuses”. Various methods and strategies are used for this: creating specialized foundations, conducting free DNA and IQ tests, random selection and buyout of children from various families, and so on. That is, the trust fully invests in intellectual resources and tries to select the most talented and capable people.
The Law of Monopolization
Suppose that several such trusts exist in the world, and each of them is engaged in similar activities. Active competition for resources and influence takes place between these trusts. As usually happens in economics, the so-called law of monopolization—concentration and centralization—operates in practice. Every time a group of people educated within any trust comes to power, they pass laws and regulatory measures that are primarily beneficial to that specific trust.
At some point, by a random coincidence of circumstances, one of the trusts manages to occupy a more significant position in the power system. This leads to partial monopolization, as this trust is now able to introduce laws that benefit it and its educational institutions. Thus, over time, with the next change of leaders, a larger number of representatives of this trust end up in power. Accordingly, this trust continues to pursue policies aimed at strengthening its position, which leads to an increase in its economic and political power.
The process continues, and ultimately we observe the complete monopolization of power and the economy. As a result, a higher oligarchy is established in the political arena, ruled by the trust or, more precisely, those who control this trust. Thus, a situation arises in the world where power is concentrated in the hands of a small group of people who manage the trust, and those who control this trust effectively become the supreme rulers of the country or even the entire world.
Toward a Stable Meritocracy?
Thus, I have shown that pure meritocracy is either an aristocracy or an oligarchy. There are no other scenarios. But a stable meritocratic system can quite possibly be created if several key aspects are taken into account. Here are three main points that must be considered:
- A democratic constitution with meritocratic principles: The first step should be the creation and implementation of a democratic constitution in which meritocratic principles will be enshrined. This constitution must be carefully thought out and contain provisions that prevent the usurpation of power. If such measures are taken, no meritocrat, even the most talented and influential, will be able to legally seize power. The constitution will become the foundation that will ensure stability and prevent meritocracy from turning into an aristocracy. But in the future, any new regulatory act will be developed and adopted by meritocrats.
- Regular alternation and rotation of power: The second important aspect is ensuring regular alternation and rotation of power. For this, strict limits on re-elections must be established. For example, the number of terms the same person can hold can be limited to two in a row. Even if a certain individual is the best in their field, nothing terrible will happen if their place is taken by the person who took second place, with a minimal margin in the assessment. This will prevent the accumulation of power in one pair of hands and make usurpation virtually impossible. Regular rotation will provide a fresh perspective on management and maintain meritocratic principles in practice.
- Destruction of the rich: The third aspect concerns eliminating the influence of the rich on the political and economic system. The complete destruction of the rich or, at least, a significant limitation of their influence, will make it possible to stop the processes of power monopolization. This will prevent the possibility of forming an oligarchy, under which a small group of people controls the main resources and makes decisions exclusively beneficial to themselves. If the rich cannot use their financial power to form trusts and advance their interests, the system will remain more balanced and fair.
For a better understanding, let us consider how these three aspects can interact and complement each other. Imagine a society where every person has equal chances to achieve success thanks to their abilities and hard work. A constitution enshrining meritocratic principles will become a guarantor that no group or individual will be able to change the rules of the game in their favor. The constant alternation of power will ensure that no one gets stuck in one position for too long, which prevents stagnation and promotes the continuous renewal of ideas and approaches.
Eliminating the influence of the rich will further strengthen the system, making it less susceptible to corruption and manipulation. In such a system, all decisions will be made based on common interests, rather than the interests of a narrow elite group. This will create a solid foundation for fair and effective governance, where every talented person can contribute to the development of society.
The Socialist Reflection
BUT! There is one significant “but” that must be taken into account. We have already heard of and seen such a system in practice. This is nothing other than pure socialism, as, for example, in the USSR. In this context, it is important to note several key aspects:
- Non-political and “merit-based” rise to power: In theory, the socialist system implies a “merit-based” rise to power, where leading positions are occupied by the most competent and trained personnel. In the Soviet Union, for example, there was a system where people could move up the career ladder thanks to their achievements and abilities. However, in practice, this did not always work as smoothly as intended. The system, built on ideas of equality and fairness, faced numerous problems and limitations.
- The conditional democratic nature of the constitution: The Soviet constitution enshrined many principles that can be considered meritocratic. However, the actual implementation of these principles left much to be desired. The constitution proclaimed equality of opportunity and fairness, but in practice, this often turned into a formality. Democratic institutions were subjected to the influence of the party elite, and true meritocracy remained unattainable.
- Economic levelling and its consequences: The socialist system strove for complete economic levelling of people, which seemingly should have promoted fairness and equality. However, this led to a number of negative consequences. First, such levelling policies often suppressed initiative and motivation to work. People saw no point in striving for better results, knowing that their efforts would not be adequately rewarded. Second, centralized economic planning and the absence of market mechanisms led to a shortage of goods and services, a decline in product quality, and general economic stagnation.
Conclusion
Thus, it can be concluded that pure meritocracy, despite its ideal principles, inevitably transforms in practice into either an aristocracy or an oligarchy. Moreover, it is more likely to be an oligarchy, where power and resources are concentrated in the hands of a few. At extreme cases, a “dirty” meritocracy, which takes into account non-meritocratic nuances, turns into a kind of socialism. And as experience shows, such a system is also inefficient and leads to economic and social problems.
Considering the above, it can be argued that meritocracy in its pure form is a utopia. Any attempt to implement a meritocratic system in real life encounters numerous obstacles and leads to results that often contradict initial expectations. Meritocracy as an ideal sounds attractive, but in practice, it either cannot be realized or leads to completely different and often negative consequences. Thus, meritocracy is not something that can be successfully implemented in the real world. Its ideals are too far from human nature and social realities. Attempts to build a meritocracy inevitably lead to the formation of an aristocracy or oligarchy, or turn into socialist experiments, which also prove to be inefficient. Ultimately, meritocracy, despite its attractiveness as a concept, cannot be implemented in practice, and any attempts to introduce it lead to unpredictable and often negative results.