1 post tagged “meritocracy”
Yesterday, I posted about how a recent scientific study indicated that many people make their decisions between political candidates based on their first impressions of the person's competency, based solely on their appearance. As this logically leads to a conclusion that many people have already arrived at, namely that democracy is a highly imperfect form of government, I asked people to suggest forms of government that might be better.
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
- Winston Churchill
This isn't to say that I would rather the nations of the world have remained as monarchies, and dictatorships and theocracies certainly are much worse systems to live under than democracies. Direct democracies can be tyrannical for anyone in the minority, and don't work well for governments larger than municipalities, anyway. To fix this the first part, you have a Constitution that guarantees the rights of minorities (and all of the citizens), protecting them from the excesses of transient majorities. To fix the second part, you make it a representative democracy, where the people elect individuals to run the government on their behalf.
So, representative democracy with constitutional protections for minorities is the best, safest system in the world. And yet, it's far from perfect. Leaders in a representative democracy, like what we have in the U.S., are based much more on the first impression, wealth, and connections of the candidates, rather than their abilities or even their stance on the issues, and lend themselves well to the politics of fearmongering and hyperbole.
Just as the Constitution was written with the idea of "checks and balances" incorporated into its structure, it's time we start building in competency and relevance as integral concepts. Here's my solution.
Meritocracy: (noun) [From WordWeb]
1. A form of social system in which power goes to those with superior intellects.
2. The belief that rulers should be chosen for their superior abilities and not because of their wealth or birth.
In a meritocracy, individuals are chosen for their ability to do a job, rather than irrelevant factors such as their wealth, connections. The first step toward this would be to include job requirements for political office. Almost seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it? Every other job in the country requires the applicant to have some sort of pre-qualifying knowledge, skills, or abilities. Why don't we set minimum requirements for political office? Did you know that in most parts of the U.S., a person can run for Sheriff without having any law enforcement background? In some counties, the position of Medical Examiner is elected, and you don't have to have any medical or forensic experience to run. The same thing goes for District Attorneys. There was a time when there wasn't much in the way of specialized knowledge necessary to do these jobs. Now there is; it's times to change it.
But how about other elected positions? How about starting with requiring high school diplomas or GEDs to be on city council? Seems reasonable to me. Bigger cities, with more candidates, may require a bachelors degree, preferably in something relevant, like political science, business, civil engineering, something to indicate that they know a little more than the average guy off the street about how to run a city.
The same applies to offices at the state or federal level. Members of congress should have at least master's degrees in something relevant to running the government or writing laws about the issues. As it is, Congressmen and Senators get almost all of their information from lobbyists, which is why they are the ones really running the country now.
The President should be one of the smartest people in the country. Doesn't that just make sense? Wouldn't you want the guy running the entire show to be in the top one or two percent? He should have to have a PhD in some relevant field.
Judges should have to have a law degree. "You mean they don't have to now?" you cry. No, they don't. It usually works out they do, but they don't have to, and local judges are often elected without any particular experience or education to get in - just a lot of friends. Obviously, the same should be true of federal judges and the Supreme Court.
The next question is, among the qualified candidates for what are now elected positions, how do we choose? Let's take a lesson from the business world - make them apply for the job. Each candidate should have to fill out an application, listing prior experience, education, and additional qualifications. Then, they should have to write essays on each of a number of major issues, saying what they would do concerning that issue if they get into office. All of this information would be available to all of the voters on line or in paper format, and then the candidates would not be allowed to campaign, at the risk of being disqualified. Since public speaking is obviously part of the job, public debates would be arranged for the final candidates. Without party-based campaigns or fund-raising, political parties would become almost irrelevant.
I also think voters would have to have some sort of minimum qualifications. I'm thinking a High School degree or GED, at least.
Now, to make all of this work, education has to be available to all Americans. It needs to be free, including the post-secondary, graduate, and doctoral levels. Otherwise, the wealthy and well-connected would still have better access to the political system. Besides, if we want to stay competitive with other industrialized countries, this is something we need to do, anyway.
Will we ever make these kinds of reforms? Probably not. I realize they would probably be viewed as elitist, but maybe someday we'll see the necessity of selecting our leaders based on more than first impressions and emotional impact.
Go.
