Is a Meritocratic Oligarchy Superior to a Democratic Republic?
Consider the case of a Fictional Meritocratic Oligarchy found in Star Wars--The Jedi Council. The Jedi Order holds the Jedi Council at the top of a pyramid who dictate the rules, course of action, ect. ect. as the primary governing body. One is only granted a position on the Jedi Council based upon merit, typically (essentially always) after receiving the rank of "Master".
Another example of a Fictional Meritocratic Oligarchy is found in Star Fleet from the Star Trek Universe.
A Real-World model of a Meritocratic Oligarchic system is Academia.
Are these systems superior to the model provided by Democratic Republics?
"Superior" Criteria (in this context): More efficient, rational, productive, healthy, self-sustaining, "just", ect. ect.
Consider, would Academia be "Superior" if it were shifted from the current Meritocratic Oligarchic model to an open Democracy?
I think any Meritocratic Oligarchy revolving around a singular/primary concern is highly limiting at best and doomed to fail in a number of areas. An example of an inherently flawed Meritocratic Oligarchy is a Timocracy-Stratocracy. A prime example of this in World History is Sparta. Another example is a Plutocracy as wealth is largely arbitrary and not a proper indicator of true merit.
Now, as a counter to this, I would point out that Academia is already structured in a strictly hierarchical, Meritocratic Oligarchic manner and has a wide variety of disciplines concerns (i.e. it is not "Centralized" but operates on many, varied de-centralized wings). That is, in Academia being an Albert Einstein level Physicist grants you nothing in the History department, nor even in the Neuroscience (i.e. a distinct Science, separate from Physics) department--although such an individual would have a "vote" in particular areas of the Physics discipline. It is perfectly plausible to have varied sectors of society operate on a similar model.
The current model grants me (or some other unqualified individual) to have an equivalent vote alongside an Einstein-level Physicists on matters of Physics. Now, the amount of experts in any given field will almost (if not) always be drastically outnumbered by the numbers of non-experts in a given discipline. Thus, the "vote" of an expert will very quickly be drowned out by the masses of non-experts who have a "vote" as well.
Here is some more "food-for-thought" on this topic:
There are many different forms a Meritocracy could potentially assume. The hypothetical model I am suggesting would take a form similar to Academia however generalized across the board. There would be no one Prime Minister/President. Rather, there would be a smaller group of experts in their given niche with a "vote" in that area, many such varied de-centralized Wings. Individuals in society would be given an opportunity to earn a "vote" in as many such Wings as they prove their proficiency in. If a member of society is too lazy to train for & earn proficiency in any area, then they will correspondingly not be given a "vote" in the workings of the society they inhabit (as it works in Academia) It has proven itself to be a "Superior" model (based upon the criteria for "Superior" I provided in a previous post). Also, note, the type of Meritocratic Oligarchic system employed by Academia (and particularly the Scientific Community) is fundamentally Quasi-Democratic in nature--it is just that one must earn their vote rather than simply being afforded it by birthright.
Imagine if everyone were given a vote in the discipline of Physics simply due to being born, now expand that out across all disciplines, and this is the nature of our current open Democracy model. Does anyone else see a problem with that?
Is a Meritocratic Oligarchy Superior to a Democratic Republic?
See brief video here (consider how "Democratic Republic" functions in this respect):
Ultimately, I don't think I should have a "vote" (of any significant weight) on an issue beyond my "expertise"/competence. However, currently, I do. In fact, for example, I have just as much "vote" as Dr. Hensen (who studies Climate Science for a living & holds more advanced degrees specific to this subject area). This should be a debate resolved amongst experts (in conjunction with allied disciplines)--not the general public/"non-experts"/laymen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, for this hypothetical model I am outlining, one could argue for a bit more open Oligarchy (not quite as exclusive) also. That is, one way of setting up the Oligarchy would be with a "singular vote" system with "top experts" in the relevant field being the only ones with any sway (i.e. a more exclusive "club"). Or, you could have a "weighted vote" system that is a bit more Democratic than a "strong Oligarchy" however would still rely upon the vote of "experts". Here is a brief outline of what that could potentially look like (which is obviously crude & subject to revision--there would clearly be ways of Mathematically modeling an optimal route/solution of which this is not it):
I. Level of Proficiency Attained (via Degree, Test, or Equivalency): # of votes
A. Top percentile PhD: 10
B. PhD: 7
C. MA/MS: 3
D. BA/BS: 1
E. AS: 1/4
II. Relevance to Discipline: # of votes
A. Direct Concentration in the Area: 10
B. In Discipline: 7
C. Closely Allied Discipline: 3
D. Generally Associated Discipline: 1
E. Loosely Related Discipline: 1/4
Now, this outline is just to provide a visual to such a hypothetical construction for a "weighted vote" system in a Meritocratic Oligarchy (I am not actually promoting this, it is a rough outline). Of course, it would not have to be set up this way, as this is more of a "weak Oligarchy" designed to be more Democratic than a "strong Oligarchy" while still relying upon the views of "experts"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In outline, these are some of the major points to the system submitted here (see below):
(1) Every citizen, in theory, has the potential to have highest level weighted vote in every domain
(2) In practice, people will not be able to attain top level expertise in every domain & will need to determine for themselves the domains they are most interested in
(3) The sphere of influence a person holds in society is entirely due to their own demonstrated abilities (of which everyone has Equality of Opportunity to demonstrate). Demonstration of abilities will occur by Degrees held, Tests passed, and/or peer-reviewed publications in an area, ect. ect. Tests will be offered for "free" and made available to all citizens as administered by the particular Wing of society. Some constraints may apply, such as eligibility for a particular test once every 1, 3, 6, ect. months--this would be determined by the "experts" of a particular Wing
(4) There is no one Central Government that controls society and makes all of the decisions. Rather, there are De-Centralized Wings that specialize in a particular area (e.g. Criminal Justice, ect.) that will often collaborate with each other out of necessity in order to make decisions for society
(5) A Constitution can be adopted if desired detailing "fundamental rights" that are not to be overridden
(6) The goal is not to shut down Democracy, rather to allow Democracy to function within certain respectable spheres of influence (which requires constraints to ensure). Voting will occur within these Wings in order to determine actions taken. That is, inside each particular arena, the operative principle is Democratic functioning based on a "weighted vote" system--whichever side attains the most votes on a particular motion wins out.
Thoughts?
Consider the case of a Fictional Meritocratic Oligarchy found in Star Wars--The Jedi Council. The Jedi Order holds the Jedi Council at the top of a pyramid who dictate the rules, course of action, ect. ect. as the primary governing body. One is only granted a position on the Jedi Council based upon merit, typically (essentially always) after receiving the rank of "Master".
Another example of a Fictional Meritocratic Oligarchy is found in Star Fleet from the Star Trek Universe.
A Real-World model of a Meritocratic Oligarchic system is Academia.
Are these systems superior to the model provided by Democratic Republics?
"Superior" Criteria (in this context): More efficient, rational, productive, healthy, self-sustaining, "just", ect. ect.
Consider, would Academia be "Superior" if it were shifted from the current Meritocratic Oligarchic model to an open Democracy?
I think any Meritocratic Oligarchy revolving around a singular/primary concern is highly limiting at best and doomed to fail in a number of areas. An example of an inherently flawed Meritocratic Oligarchy is a Timocracy-Stratocracy. A prime example of this in World History is Sparta. Another example is a Plutocracy as wealth is largely arbitrary and not a proper indicator of true merit.
Now, as a counter to this, I would point out that Academia is already structured in a strictly hierarchical, Meritocratic Oligarchic manner and has a wide variety of disciplines concerns (i.e. it is not "Centralized" but operates on many, varied de-centralized wings). That is, in Academia being an Albert Einstein level Physicist grants you nothing in the History department, nor even in the Neuroscience (i.e. a distinct Science, separate from Physics) department--although such an individual would have a "vote" in particular areas of the Physics discipline. It is perfectly plausible to have varied sectors of society operate on a similar model.
The current model grants me (or some other unqualified individual) to have an equivalent vote alongside an Einstein-level Physicists on matters of Physics. Now, the amount of experts in any given field will almost (if not) always be drastically outnumbered by the numbers of non-experts in a given discipline. Thus, the "vote" of an expert will very quickly be drowned out by the masses of non-experts who have a "vote" as well.
Here is some more "food-for-thought" on this topic:
There are many different forms a Meritocracy could potentially assume. The hypothetical model I am suggesting would take a form similar to Academia however generalized across the board. There would be no one Prime Minister/President. Rather, there would be a smaller group of experts in their given niche with a "vote" in that area, many such varied de-centralized Wings. Individuals in society would be given an opportunity to earn a "vote" in as many such Wings as they prove their proficiency in. If a member of society is too lazy to train for & earn proficiency in any area, then they will correspondingly not be given a "vote" in the workings of the society they inhabit (as it works in Academia) It has proven itself to be a "Superior" model (based upon the criteria for "Superior" I provided in a previous post). Also, note, the type of Meritocratic Oligarchic system employed by Academia (and particularly the Scientific Community) is fundamentally Quasi-Democratic in nature--it is just that one must earn their vote rather than simply being afforded it by birthright.
Imagine if everyone were given a vote in the discipline of Physics simply due to being born, now expand that out across all disciplines, and this is the nature of our current open Democracy model. Does anyone else see a problem with that?
Is a Meritocratic Oligarchy Superior to a Democratic Republic?
See brief video here (consider how "Democratic Republic" functions in this respect):
Ultimately, I don't think I should have a "vote" (of any significant weight) on an issue beyond my "expertise"/competence. However, currently, I do. In fact, for example, I have just as much "vote" as Dr. Hensen (who studies Climate Science for a living & holds more advanced degrees specific to this subject area). This should be a debate resolved amongst experts (in conjunction with allied disciplines)--not the general public/"non-experts"/laymen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, for this hypothetical model I am outlining, one could argue for a bit more open Oligarchy (not quite as exclusive) also. That is, one way of setting up the Oligarchy would be with a "singular vote" system with "top experts" in the relevant field being the only ones with any sway (i.e. a more exclusive "club"). Or, you could have a "weighted vote" system that is a bit more Democratic than a "strong Oligarchy" however would still rely upon the vote of "experts". Here is a brief outline of what that could potentially look like (which is obviously crude & subject to revision--there would clearly be ways of Mathematically modeling an optimal route/solution of which this is not it):
I. Level of Proficiency Attained (via Degree, Test, or Equivalency): # of votes
A. Top percentile PhD: 10
B. PhD: 7
C. MA/MS: 3
D. BA/BS: 1
E. AS: 1/4
II. Relevance to Discipline: # of votes
A. Direct Concentration in the Area: 10
B. In Discipline: 7
C. Closely Allied Discipline: 3
D. Generally Associated Discipline: 1
E. Loosely Related Discipline: 1/4
Now, this outline is just to provide a visual to such a hypothetical construction for a "weighted vote" system in a Meritocratic Oligarchy (I am not actually promoting this, it is a rough outline). Of course, it would not have to be set up this way, as this is more of a "weak Oligarchy" designed to be more Democratic than a "strong Oligarchy" while still relying upon the views of "experts"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In outline, these are some of the major points to the system submitted here (see below):
(1) Every citizen, in theory, has the potential to have highest level weighted vote in every domain
(2) In practice, people will not be able to attain top level expertise in every domain & will need to determine for themselves the domains they are most interested in
(3) The sphere of influence a person holds in society is entirely due to their own demonstrated abilities (of which everyone has Equality of Opportunity to demonstrate). Demonstration of abilities will occur by Degrees held, Tests passed, and/or peer-reviewed publications in an area, ect. ect. Tests will be offered for "free" and made available to all citizens as administered by the particular Wing of society. Some constraints may apply, such as eligibility for a particular test once every 1, 3, 6, ect. months--this would be determined by the "experts" of a particular Wing
(4) There is no one Central Government that controls society and makes all of the decisions. Rather, there are De-Centralized Wings that specialize in a particular area (e.g. Criminal Justice, ect.) that will often collaborate with each other out of necessity in order to make decisions for society
(5) A Constitution can be adopted if desired detailing "fundamental rights" that are not to be overridden
(6) The goal is not to shut down Democracy, rather to allow Democracy to function within certain respectable spheres of influence (which requires constraints to ensure). Voting will occur within these Wings in order to determine actions taken. That is, inside each particular arena, the operative principle is Democratic functioning based on a "weighted vote" system--whichever side attains the most votes on a particular motion wins out.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
