There’s a famous quote by Winston Churchill that goes “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”
Because let’s face it, the average voter is a dope. That’s why the tallest guy with the best hair almost always wins an election. That’s why US presidents have to pander to religious zealots. That’s why a dumb argument that fits into a catchphrase always beats a good argument that needs some explanation. That’s why dancing on the Ellen Degeneres show is important. That’s why political jokes get elected. I know people who voted for a communist candidate because she “seemed nice and sociable on TV”.
So what’s the alternative you ask?
Communism would be nice if it wasn’t for that nasty little thing they call human nature.
Benevolent dictatorship would be great if power didn’t corrupt.
But in the real world, I think the best solution is a move towards meritocracy. A meritocracy is a society centred on the concept of competence. The person with the best track record gets the assignment. Of course, it would have to be a slow, bit-by-bit process, but I think we would all be better off for it. A reasonable starting point would be a more highly qualified democratic system. For example, there ought to be some mandatory testing before a person is allowed to vote. Sounds terrible? We’re already forbidding minors from voting, even though tons of 17 year-olds are smarter than their parents.
The voting test should be taken on the spot at the voting booth, and should be built around verifiable and non-biased data, such as “which of the following political parties has the largest proposed budget for infrastructure?”. If you wanted to be soft about it, you could even make it a sliding-scale system, where 0 correct answers gives you a voting power of 0.5 while 100% correct answers entitles you to a voting power of 1.
One effect of moving closer to a meritocracy is that it increases competition. Competition always brings out the best in concepts and technologies. The hottest fires make the hardest iron. Many of the most groundbreaking technologies in history started out as military projects. Everything from the jet engine to nuclear power to the Internet. Because of this, meritocracies historically a wildly successful. The largest empire in known history was a meritocracy.
A negative effect of a meritocracy is that it would put an increased premium on deceptive presentation and claiming credit for the accomplishments of others. To counter this, one of the requirements for a working meritocracy would have to be a strict paradigm of transparency for those in office. Transparency is almost always a good thing. As a rule, the more secretive a government is the more oppressive it is.
The benefits of meritocracy are many, but one thing in particular sticks out to me: it’s the most effective. The USA is the most meritocratic of the western democracies, and consequently the most powerful. But even the US has a long way to go. In today’s western political systems, class and loyalty mean so much that they often overshadow competence. If you doubt that, welcome back from your 8-year trip to Antarctica..
Power to the proficient!
