Meritocracy is a Myth
The idea of a meritocracy sounds good, but in practice is just like any other theory: perfect on paper but imperfect in the real world. All the way from economics to the natural sciences, perfect models are used to describe an imperfect world, and they do so very well. However, the opposite is true when it comes to systems of government. The idea of a true democracy, communist utopia, or meritocracy exists but is essentially nonexistent in the real world. Just as in the USA, capitalism and democracy conflict with each other, the idea that this country is a Meritocracy conflicts with the realities of our society. Meritocracy is a government where the holding of power by people is selected on the basis of their ability. Ask yourself this: is this true? Do the most qualified and able people hold the highest position in our government? Sure you could say yes, but the blatantly obvious answer is a most definite NO. Truly, the idea of a meritocracy is a myth. It looks good in theory but in reality is not realized.
As the capitalistic system flourishes on the basis of self-interests and private ownership, inevitably, this leads to selfishness and a profit, corporate-driven society that embraces equality but does not actually achieve it. Essentially, the same is true in regards to the selection of our government: it is not based on merit. There is a reason that the Bushes have been in politics for so long. From George Bush Sr. and Jr. being presidents all the way to Jeb Bush being Florida governor and then running for the office of the presidency. Although it cannot be considered nepotism, at some point we must wonder why exactly 3 members of the same family have been given the platform to run for president when most Americans could only dream of it. In fact, in the current administration, Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka and step-son Jared Kushner have been given senior positions. They might be qualified, but this is nepotism: the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs. This is obvious proof that those who are high achieving may not necessarily get the job. What instead drives the selection of officials are their popularity, media exposure, and many other factors such as money.
The 2016 US presidential election has revived debates on the pros and cons of a constitutional republic. Many see the election as having produced an incompetent, senile, and corrupt choice in Donald Trump. Others argue that this was part of a political radicalization driven by marginalized and inadequately represented social groups. Van Reybrouck (2016) argues that:
“If one accepts that broad representation and competent political leadership are both valuable, it seems worth asking what electoral democracy with political parties achieves. Is it possible to escape the tension between broad representation and competent rule? Finding an empirical answer to this question, however, is difficult.”
Donald Trump fits neither of these categories. He may act like a man for the working class, but he is one of only 2,000 billionaires on this planet. A group so elite that the 8 richest people on this planet have an amount of wealth equivalent to the bottom 3.6 billion. Trump did not even create his own fortune, the majority was inherited from this father Fred. His argument that he only “received a small loan of a million dollars” is for him to masquerade as a hard working and self-made man. The majority of Americans cannot go to their banks and receive a million dollar loan that they could use to invest or start a profitable business. In truth, Donald Trump does not represent the broadness and diversity prevalent within America, but one small, elite part of it. As primarily a businessman who uses his name to market himself and his businesses, the competence of Trump as president is a legitimate discussion. In fact, it has been reported that Trump did not even want to be president and only enjoys the title. Simply, he saw the media exposure and attention as an opportunity to expand his business interests and create new relationships such as with those in Russia. Even with the release of the infamous Access Hollywood video, Trump still won the presidency. At some point, one must question the credibility and competence of a proven liar and womanizer who was born with a golden spoon in his mouth.
The competency of both 2016 presidential candidates can seriously be brought into question. Hillary Clinton was investigated by the FBI for irresponsibly using government e-mail servers and her handling of the 2012 attack on a USA diplomatic compound in Libya was a contentious political issue. The Clintons are just another powerful political dynasty similar to the Bushes. Without Bill Clinton, the chances that Hillary would have even have entered or been given the opportunity to enter politics is almost nonexistent. Part of this has to do with the people as after all, we are the ones voting this incompetence into office.
We are often swayed by big corporate media that, right or left, only spews half-truths and bad faith arguments. Without being able to receive a full picture, how can we as a people make a good choice for the people who will represent us? The consistent biases displayed across the wide spectrum of media make it hard for one to gather facts and make a good, informed decision in regards to their political representation. Often, the most able candidates do not even get a chance to be on the ballot or get their voice heard. Coupled with a two-party platform, full representation of everyone’s political ideals cannot be achieved with the current political system. This also has to do partially with the media as for example, Trump fully embraced the saying that “all publicity is good publicity.” With the extensive negative media attention that he received, Trump’s most ardent supporters now spew the phrase “fake news” and have started a war against all left wing media. Not only does the current political system make it hard for qualified candidates to have a voice or donors backing them, but the media also does not cover them for the most part. This was evidenced in the 2016 Presidential primaries as the DNC was not neutral and attempted to displace Bernie Sanders, a candidate who many considered an outsider to the Democratic establishment. Considering all of this, truly, the idea that American politics is based on merit is at best deceptive.
Are politicians more competent?
According to studies and research, politicians overall are more qualified, experienced, and educated than the average citizen. However, this is to be expected. The pattern that competence monotonically increases with political power has been the result of several factors. Wealthy families exert more influence which offers them more opportunities. The majority of wealth in the United States is inherited. This by itself is enough evidence that it is not merit that will always help you to achieve a higher social and economic status, but a multitude of factors that may or may not involve merit at all. It may be true that often the most qualified or the smartest individuals get the job, but this is far from being applicable to most situations. This brings up another question, how can America be a meritocracy if everyone is not given the same opportunities? Even in terms of college admissions, which is essentially a prerequisite to going into politics, families who are able to donate to private universities and pay full tuition are often chosen over equally or more capable students who come from a lesser socioeconomic background. Recently, a large college admissions cheating scandal where college officials were bribed to recruit fake athletes, proctors were bribed to change test scores, and people were hired taking standardized tests for other students was exposed. This cannot be an isolated case and is most likely just one of many where the wealthy leverage their influence and money to take away acceptances from qualified students. Unless we all start with the same exact economic and social backgrounds, a perfectly meritocratic system is essentially impossible and just a big a dream as a truly communist society.
Two more contributing factors to the fact that politics is almost retained exclusively for the elite are the prevalence of exclusive and inclusive meritocracy. Meritocracy is a political philosophy that holds that certain things, such as economic goods or power, should be vested in individuals on the basis of talent, effort, and achievement, rather than factors such as sexuality, race, gender, age, or wealth. However, this is not the case for the majority of people. Many who are high-achieving or have the potential to be high achieving never see their desires and what they are deserving of materialized. Although politics selects for competence, this is usually only in correlation with higher socioeconomic status. There are many effects that result from this meritocratic recruitment, especially the displacement of lower social and economic groups from politics where they are excluded from the meritocracy. However, they still must be represented in government by someone, often people who are out of touch and just say what wants to be heard. It is simply not possible for the issues of the lower classes to be addressed well by people who are not part of it or have not experienced living paycheck to paycheck or not being able to afford a $500 unexpected bill like how half of Americans live. This is the inclusive meritocracy which results in inadequate representation for the people.
What can we do?
Many agree that the democratic and socialist dichotomy is outdated. What we need is a mix and compromise of the two that works best for the American people. In fact we should be taking a page out of China’s political system, which is in many ways more meritocratic than our own. There has been a glaring lack of public confidence in the American political system to produce able politicians who will actually work for the people. Emulating China’s system, Ann Lee of the Huffington Post states that: “the U.S. can introduce the idea of earned authority as a requirement for running for office. China’s leaders must go through decades of serving their country in a variety of roles before they can ascend to the top positions because the Chinese believe that the privilege of running a country should only go to people who have proven their ability to help their country.” Just as in China, picking the best policymakers and smartest politicians should be of high priority to American citizens, even in a democracy. However, mob rule and popular vote based off misconceptions, preconceptions, and half truths renders this to be rare in American politics.
Getting the most competent of American society to enter politics in itself is a challenge due to the toxic and stubborn milieu that encompasses politics. Besides age and being a citizen, running for public office has no true requirements. While this may be democratic, it in fact has the opposite effect as running a meritocratic society requires individuals with merit to lead it. Rule of law is only an extension of politics and cannot protect the people if untruthful and exploitative policy and lawmakers continue to benefit themselves at the expense of the American people. A democracy can only function with competent leaders and is only as good as those leaders. As the next generation starts to vote and enter politics, we must take it upon ourselves to exercise our rights and place the best possible leadership in place.
Sources:
