This volume is an introduction to political philosophy which presents a variety of ideologies which have been prominent in western civilization. One chapter on the ideology of meritocracy is included after the table of contents. Available currently for $12.00 plus shipping sand handling.
A CASEBOOK OF IDEOLOGIES TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 1 Introduction
Page 4 The Case for Liberalism M. Brewster
Page 14 The Case For Communism M. Birch
Page 26 The Case for Meritocracy M. Buckley
Page 32 The Case for Conservatism M. Bullivant
Page 46 The Case for Democratic Socialism M. Beck
Page 60 The Case for Anarchism M. Barrager
THE CASE FOR MERITOCRACY Malcolm Buckley
I tell you that man is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find someone quickly to whom he can hand over that gift of freedom with which that ill-fated creature is born.
Fyodor Dostoevsky-- from The Brothers Karamazov
______________________
Thus spake the Grand Inquisitor, ascribing to a silent Christ the responsibility for two thousand years of misery, bloodshed, and chaos, which were the result of his thoughtless gift of freedom to the host of humans unable to use it wisely. Democracy, implies the Inquisitor, is rule by the rabble; that is, rule by the vast majority of individuals who are dominated by their desires and their passions. Far better to accept meritocracy, or rule by an elite of wise men, who are guided by reason, and who are prepared to assume to burden of caring for their less capable brethern much as the good shepherd cares for his flock, or the good father cares for his children. In a similar vein, Plato long ago proclaimed that until philosophers become kings, or kings become philosophers, societies will waver on the brink of chaos, and the people will never be happy.
Yet, if the case for meritocracy was persuasive during the times of Plato and Dostoevsky, how much stronger has it become now that the onrush of technology has produced societies so complex that the common man is unable even to understand the questions, let alone grapple in a meaningful way with the answers to the horrendous problems which beset us. . In contemporary democracies, the average person is expected to consider issues such as whether or not Canada should invest in nuclear submarines, whether we ought to embrace free trade with the United States, or whether we ought to take drastic steps to curb acid rain. Most citizens are barely aware that these basic questions of public policy exist; yet they are expected to choose wisely between candidates who appeal for their votes with vain and windy promises aimed at their prejudices and their pocketbooks. Small wonder that democratic electorates so frequently choose, as their leaders, fiends like Adolph Hitler, crooks like Richard Nixon, and glittering charlatans like Brian Mulroney.
Indeed, even if a democratic electorate does manage, by great good luck, to elect rulers who are
wise, well-informed and devoted to the public good, those rulers are continually constrained from
enforcing policies they know to be necessary by the knowledge that, if such policies prove immediately
inconvenient or unpopular, they will be overthrown in the next election. Consequently, a statesman in a
democratic community must pander to the immediate lusts and irrational loathings of citizens, rather than
plan wisely and carefully to promote the long term public good. If he does not so pander, he will be
unceremoniously ejected from office by the demagogue, who is quite prepared to promise anything in
his quest for power. Little wonder that, in a democracy, the good and the wise avoid the political arena,
leaving it clear for those who are more cunning and unscrupulous in the pursuit of power.
I wish in this essay to put the case for meritocracy as clearly and concisely as possible. It is
convenient to label those who favour this case as elitists, in order to distinguish them from egalitarians ,
who embrace the democratic principle that each person in a society ought to have an equal voice in
decisions which affect him. At the heart of the egalitarian creed is the notion that human beings are
inherently equal. It is a mystical notion, and an empirical investigation of the human condition
demonstrates it to be completely and utterly groundless. The elitist will point out that, on the contrary,
the fact is that people are unequal; that humans inherit at birth different capacities for different vocations,
whether for making shoes, building ships, caring for children, painting pictures, running a business, or
ruling a nation, just as they inherit different characteristics in terms of height, hair colour, resistance to
disease and intelligence. These capacities and characteristics are distributed in the population in
accordance with a normal curve. Few persons are dwarves or morons, few are giants or geniuses, and
the vast majority are of normal height and of mediocre intellect. Environmental factors will certainly have
an effect upon these characteristics, but they will not obliterate them. Children will grow up to be tall or
short, susceptible or resistant to cancer, able or inept at solving quad- ratic equations, primarily because
of the genes they inherit from their parents. Factors of diet, family background, culture and education
are secondary. In other words, perfect equality of educational opportunity will not produce perfect
equality of ability at maturity. I would say any egalitarian who denies this truth about human nature is
more concerned with ideology than with empirical fact.
The elitist will proceed by identifying one of the character- istics of a good ruler as intelligence,
defined for the purposes of this argument as the ability to achieve consistent success in find- ing
satisfactory solutions to complex higher order problems so frequently encountered in a complex
technological society (three such problems were mentioned earlier). Perfect equality of educational
opportunity will do nothing to reduce the gap between the genius and the idiot, or indeed between the
genius and the average citizen. On the contrary, it would appear that recent aids to problem solving are
more likely to enlarge the gap. It has become obvious that complex intellectual tools, such as differ-
ential calculus and the computer, increase at an exponential rate, the abilities in problem solving of those
most adept at using them, far beyond a similar increase on the part of their less gifted fellows. He points
out that a lever increases the power of a strong man far more than it does a weakling; similarly the
computer increases the ability of a clever man far more than it does that of a dullard. Thus the more
complex the world becomes, the greater the genetically derived gulf between those who are more and
those who are less capable of solving our problems for us.
Given this unpalatable but incontestable empirical fact, the elitist's position is clear; we must accept
human inequality as a fact of life and arrange our society accordingly. Since humans are. Since humans
are unequal in intelligence, they ought to be unequal in power. The good society is one in which
intellectually superior children are identified as early as possible and carefully prepared for positions of
authority. Such preparation should concentrate upon developing within these future leaders the utmost
competence in problem- solving. It must also indoctrinate them with the view that the best solution to
any problem is that which advances the interests of the public as a whole, rather than one which
advances their own selfish private interests. The selection and education of potential rulers becomes the
single most important task for the society.
This should not be taken to mean that the education of the remainder of the population can be
neglected. On the contrary, every child must be carefully tested in order to determine his vocational
capacity, and then carefully trained to function to his highest potential in whatever vocation is
appropriate to his particular talents. Those best suited to driving taxis will be trained to drive
them, those most gifted at composing music will be trained to compose it, those most gifted at ruling the
nation will be trained to rule it. There will be no need to force a person to work in a job he loathes,
since most people thoroughly enjoy doing the work which best suits their abilities and for which they
have been properly trained. The point is, of course, that each person has a right to whatever
educational experiences are most appropriate to the development of his fullest potential, but none to
experiences which he cannot handle, and which would only cause him intense frustration. Perfect
equality of educational opportunity is the only form of equality that a good society should strive to
achieve; a similar equality of opportunity prevails in competitions for Olympic medals. The ultimate aim
is the achievement of excellence.
It is, of course, crucial that those who are not suited to rule should never be given the notion that they
have the right to do so, or to have a voice in the selection of those who are so suited. Rather they
should be taught to obey without question the dictates of those most capable of making decisions.
Indeed, many of the problems of contemporary democracies stem, as the Grand Inquisitor has pointed
out, from the widespread notion that the average person has the wisdom and therefore the right to
choose his own vocation, to spend his income in any way he chooses, and to participate in the election
of his political leaders.
At this point in the argument, the egalitarian invariably raises a question of great consequence.
Supposing we do accept the principle that the fittest should rule, how are we to determine who is most
fit. The elitist will readily acknowledge that this is a crucial question, but will point out that answers
hitherto proposed are obviously inadequate. We have already experienced the disasters inherent in
aristocracy, where rulers are chosen on the basis of birth. Similar disasters are common to plutocracy,
where they are chosen on the basis of wealth. Indeed, our current system of choosing leaders in
Canada can best be described as plutocracy operating under the facade of democracy. Hence we find
ourselves ruled by businessmen masquerading as statesmen. And surely little more need be said about
the practice of choosing rulers on the basis of their ability to appeal to the irrational desires of the
majority, which is the custom in a democracy.
The obvious solution, and one proposed by Plato more than 2,000 years ago, is to use a series of
objective tests to determine those who are most capable of solving problems of a complex nature. In
contemporary society we are currently evolving and improving such intelligence tests, to the obvious
discomfort of those egalitarians who tend to feel that, however accurate they may be in predicting future
success in various vocations, they are somehow immoral. The elitist will respond that, on the contrary,
the most immoral system is one which treates all persons as equal, thereby needlessly hindering the
progress of those who are superior and needlessly frustrating those who aspire to vocations for which
they are inherently unsuited.
At this point the egalitarian may respond that intelligence tests, especially in their present state of
imprecision, lead to mistakes of categorization which are simply unjust; that if one child is incorrectly
categorized in terms of potential, an injustice results which destroys the validity of the whole endeavour.
The elitist can only reply that intelligence tests are empirical instruments, and as such can never provide
absolute certainty; that even were we to exert prodigious efforts (as we ought) to improve their
predictive ability, some injustice will inevitably occur, but that surely such deficiencies are minor
compared to the major faults which result from treating as equal those who manifestly are not.
Of course, decisions regarding the future vocation of a person must not be taken lightly. The more
crucial the vocation may be to the survival and prosperity of the community, the more time and effort
must be expended in the selection process. Plato, for example, suggested a process of selection which
would begin at birth and continue, in the case of the highest vocations, until the age of fifty, at which age
those most fit to be philosopher kings would finally be chosen. And he points out that the most crucial
role for those kings would be that of choosing their successors, monitoring their development through
childhood, youth and maturity, testing their courage, their intelligence, their devotion to the community
through countless ordeals in the classroom, on the playing field, in the armed forces, in business and in
lower governmental tasks, until the finest are finally chosen to join their fellows in the ruling council.
In fact, a moment's consideration will indicate that for most of the crucial tasks in our society,--
doctor, lawyer, architect, engineer,--we do select candidates meritocratically, and no one complains.
Why then do we not use the meritocratic process for the selection of the most important task of all, the
task of ruling the nation?
Egalitarians may here make the further objection that intelligence alone is not sufficient guarantee of a
good ruler; that many clever people are either lazy or immoral, or both. Of course, intelligence is a
necessary but not a sufficient condition for the good ruler. He must be both energetic and profoundly
committed to the well-being of the community, as opposed to his own private interests. The question
then turns on the derivation of energy and moral integrity. Are these qualities inherited or acquired, or a
mixture of both? If inherited, then presumably tests can be devised to predict the development of both
qualities; if acquired, then a prime necessity is an educational system which teaches, conditions, or
indoctrinates these characteristics into those who are destined to be rulers.
There remains one final objection of an empirical nature which must be countered. The claim is that
elitist societies are unstable, since a gulf inevitably grows between the people and an elite, which tends
to become isolated from popular concerns and prevailing conditions. Inevitably, it is claimed, such a
division into classes will bring about class war and social collapse. The empirical response is clear; over
the breadth of history, it is the democratic state which has been short-lived, and the autocratic state
which has had staying power. Clearly the stability so characteristic of autocracy would be profoundly
enhanced were the rulers to be selected on the basis of merit, rather than, as has so often been the
case, on the basis of blood, wealth, or military prowess (certainly the most common, brutal and socially
stultifying mode of attaining power).
Furthermore, if an elite is properly selected and educated, its members will strive to regularly share the life styles and tribulations of their less responsible fellows, in order that they can skillfully blend the provision of what their fellows desire with what they ought to have. Surely the highest degree of stability will be attained in a society where the people trust, admire and respect their rulers, and the rulers consistently behave in ways which merit such trust and affection. Compare this to the gross instability of contemporary democracies, where politicians are almost universally distrusted and reviled, with good reason.
Indeed, this claim that democracy is more stable and more efficient than autocracy is curious, given the
fact that the vast majority of insitutions in contemporary society are managed by elites rather than by
democratically elected representatives. Business, industry, educational institutions, hospitals-- virtually
any workplace is run by an elite of foremen, managers, boards of directors and presidents. Consider
that most successful organizations in the world today, our multi-national corporations, are run by
meritocratic hierarchies, topped by a board of directors, the members of which are chosen after
strenuous and meticulous testing carried out over many years, in a manner very similar to the Platonic
proposal for choosing philosopher kings. One wonders why many who would never think of proposing
that the workers in a business should be granted the freedom to elect their foremen, managers and
directors, are so intent on defending the freedom of the average citizen to participate in the choice of the
rulers of their nation.
Finally, however, it the the moral objection which causes the greatest challenge to the elitist. This
objection arises from the claim that a human has a moral right to be free to decide upon his own future,
his own vocation, his own entertainment, without guidance or control by an authority, however wise and
benevolent. The elitist can only respond that the notion of freedom is a very confusing one. Most often,
ignorant folk stridently demand freedom to make decisions based upon whim, caprice or irrational
desire, without concern for long term consequences. As John Milton pro- claims, "License they mean
when they cry liberty. But who wants that must first be good and wise". We do not allow children
complete freedom, because they tend to seek instant gratification of desires, without concern for
unfortunate consquences in the long run. They want it all and they want it now, and in most cases they
ought not to have it, for their own good. The elitist must point out that many adults are little different
from children in this regard, and that excessive freedom at any age will frequently lead to disaster for the
individual and for his community. True happiness will best be achieved if an individual is placed in a
situation where he is given the opportunity to rise to the limits of his potential as a person, and that can
best occur when those opportunities are provided him by those most capable of discerning and
developing his potential. The freedom to destroy your own life and the stability of your society is a false
kind of freedom, quite incompatible with happiness.
Of course people want to be free, because they want to satisfy their most immediate desires, and
look upon any restriction as deplorable. But freedom does not bring happiness to the vast majority,
unless it be a carefully limited freedom to choose between a multitude of different brands of breakfast
food or television situation comedies, all of which have been carefully selected to avoid harm to body
and mind. One has only to consider that period of life when you were most happy; surely it was during
your childhood, when crucial decisions were taken for you by wise and benevolent parents, who left
you a variety of choices in a narrow range. You felt secure, loved, healthy and contented, but you
certainly weren't free, except in the most marginal sense. Surely it is wise to permit complete freedom
only to those few who are prepared to accept the responsibility of caring for the vast majority who
cannot handle it however much they long for it. They will be happier without it, in the long run.
A contemporary example will make the previous point. Our society currently embraces the notion
that individuals ought to be free to drive their own cars, even though it is becoming increasingly clear
that such freedom leads to the squandering of non-renewable energy, the pollution of the atmosphere,
the destruction of communities through the construction of freeways, and the slaughter of great numbers
of innocent people in traffic accidents. A complete system of public transit, with severe limits to the
freedom to own a private automobile, is clearly the only rational solution to a massive problem. Yet the
vast majority of citizens, with little thought for the inevitable consequences, in the long run, uphold the
right of every individual to own and drive a car. Our current rulers are quite unable to act in ways
contrary to popular desire, and do what must be done for the good of all. They either lack the
intelligence to see what is necessary, because they were elected by virtue of their popularity rather than
their intellect; or they lack the will and the courage to do what is necessary because they know that
unpopular measures will lead to their defeat in the next election. What is needed is a meritocratic elite
which would curtail destructive freedom in order to ensure that, in the long run, maximum happiness
would be achieved.
Egalitarians will label such an elite a host of big brothers of dictators. The appropriate term is that of
philosopher king, coined by Plato so long ago. Unless such philosophers gain power soon, the headlong
stampede which goes under the name of technological prog- ress will culminate in disaster, and humans
will revert to the tribal democracy of the primitive savage. It is questionable whether the freedom to
scratch for grubs in a nuclear desert is worth the price.
Return to List of Books