Constitutional meritocracy?

[Azarkon]

It's my personal view that if an objective method existed of differentiating good leadership from bad leadership (in terms of results), the optimal form of government is a constitutional meritocracy, by which I mean an essentially authoritarian government that is selected and replaced by virtue of its performance, but which can never go beyond certain constitutional barriers in terms of what it can do. By analogy, think of corporate management, where popularity among the employees alone won't get you the job, nor allow you to keep it.

 

The obvious problem is coming up with an objective criteria for leadership. If corporate leadership is measured by profitability, what is national leadership measured by? It seems to me that the answer to this question is not, shall we say, intractable. In other words, there can be a definitive answer, and as our answers improve, so will the value of adopting a constitutional meritocracy.

 

Thoughts?

Edited March 11, 2007 by Azarkon

[Walsingham]

Interesting question, but I believe you answered it yourself. Your concept of merit is based on success in meeting operational level goals. WHY you're doing the operations in the first place, that's national/strategic level leadership, and it's often pretty arbitrary. Are we trying to get rich, or have a good time, or be very quiet and pious? Do any of these things in teh wrong context and you are going to get a swift kick. Optimise them in the right context and you will get praise.

[Sand]

Well, you could have a set of ministries that overlooks various aspects of society, and in a council format each Primine Minister has a single vote on issues that concern the nation as a whole. To reach the station of Prime Minister it would be dependent of the ministry's goals and style in which it reaches that goal. The more merit you gain the higher rank you become.

[Hurlshort]

The Song dynasty in China had a fairly effective meritocracy, but you ened up with mostly scholars in high positions. This might seem good, but in actuality it caused an awful amount of neglect for the commerce system and merchants. It also sounds like you'd have a few folks in power for long stretches rather than a steady churn. That never seems to work well.

[Oerwinde]

It also sounds like you'd have a few folks in power for long stretches rather than a steady churn. That never seems to work well.

 

Thats where the constitutional part comes in I'm guessing.

[Walsingham]

The Song dynasty in China had a fairly effective meritocracy, but you ened up with mostly scholars in high positions. This might seem good, but in actuality it caused an awful amount of neglect for the commerce system and merchants. It also sounds like you'd have a few folks in power for long stretches rather than a steady churn. That never seems to work well.

 

man's got a point. Long periods in office almost always come with corruption and indifference.

[Sand]

Make a term limit then for the Prime Minister position of 8 to 12 years.

[Gorgon]

Confucianism wasen't all about entrenched hierarchry though, it also holds that if the ruler misrules it is the duty and right of his subjects to overthrow him.

Edited March 11, 2007 by Gorgon

[Atreides]

I think a significant problem of politics nowadays is rulers find it politically difficult to implement projects with long-term payoffs even if they're the right thing to do. That's because in the short term it takes resources and could be unpopular (affecting their reelection) and the payoff only kick in when they're no longer around. Maybe worse, somebody else claims the credit for their work.

[Azarkon]

All very good points, and I like the comparison to classical Chinese political theory (although the dynastic system was never constitutional and certainly didn't offer any way of selecting good leaders besides hereditary descent). I'd like to comment on the limited term concept - there's no reason why the government should not be evaluated on an annual or bi-annual basis. Indeed, I think it'd be necessary for a healthy administration, and to root out corruption. You might argue, then, that a separation of power is also necessary, so that the executive government is not used to evaluate itself - in this, it's not too different from the current American system (which, in my mind, is very well designed but for a few critical flaws).

 

I'd like to emphasize, though, that the key difference between a constitutional meritocracy and a constitutional republic is the existence of an objective criteria for government performance. Lacking such a criteria, the best I can see is a hybrid system in which people *voted* on the criteria for performance, instead of candidates, and then the government is evaluated and replaced as necessary based on those measurements. The problem with this, as Walsh pointed out, is that people's ideas of what the government should do change with the national mood, and yet you do not want to have a re-vote each time something new happens (ie 9/11). As such, for a constitutional meritocracy to work, there must be enough political, economic, and social theory to support the development of an all-encompassing, and objectively defined (as possible), national criteria. Such a criteria would include how to measure a government's performance on issues such as national security, domestic employment, and the like in a social scientific manner. It would still be amenable to a changing society, but presumably the process of amendment would be subject to close scrutiny under social scientific reasoning, rather than be simply a product of national mood.

 

Ultimately, the incentive behind my post is to pinpoint some key flaws in the modern elective system and to offer solutions. The most obvious flaw in American politics that I've seen is the focus on a candidate's personal image, charisma, and (many times) the depth of his wallet as opposed to his actual ability to lead and govern. This has led to campaign tactics such as political mud-slinging and demagoguery, neither of which is conducive to selecting an effective leader. Meanwhile, the failure to produce good candidates on the part of major parties would not be nearly as much of an issue if there was actually a way of formally evaluating their failures and then producing new leaders that would not make the same mistakes. Instead, each party is simply concerned with how to caputre the largest demographic with its range of "controversial" issues and the personal background of its political candidate. In a time when what we really need are visionary leaders who can offer humanity hope and optimism towards a brighter future, we are mired in political deadlock between weak candidates and short-sighted solutions to present problems.

 

If one, in such a situation, is not to blame the government system under which we operate, then the best we can say is that this is all just a string of unfortunate incidents and that there's nothing we can really do about it except hope that the problem will solve itself by virtue of new, better candidates. If so, are we really so different from the peasant farmers who hoped that the tyrant's son would be less oppressive? If outright tyranny was cured, in the West, by the adoption of constitutional law, then doesn't it stand to reason that political short-sightedness and demagoguery can also be cured by similar objective guarantees of government performance?

 

I don't know - but it seems a good start.

[Walsingham]

Azarkon, I think the field borne peasant was correct to think about changing the system, but now the system has changed it us the people who need to improve. How can we even talk about improving the system when only half of us bother to use the system?

[Azarkon]

Of course - democracy only works if the people are willing. But people don't use the system because they lack faith in it. How do you put faith back into the system without giving it a new face lift, at least?

[taks]

The most obvious flaw in American politics that I've seen is the focus on a candidate's personal image, charisma, and (many times) the depth of his wallet as opposed to his actual ability to lead and govern.

not just the US that suffers from this. the US probably gets the most press on it, however, since we have had so many recent "battlefield" elections lately.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

Of course - democracy only works if the people are willing. But people don't use the system because they lack faith in it. How do you put faith back into the system without giving it a new face lift, at least?

 

I'm not saying you're daft. I'm saying that you're advocating the biggest most disruptive approach. We need a more slow 'elbow grease' approach. Education, culture change etc.

[Azarkon]

The most obvious flaw in American politics that I've seen is the focus on a candidate's personal image, charisma, and (many times) the depth of his wallet as opposed to his actual ability to lead and govern.

not just the US that suffers from this. the US probably gets the most press on it, however, since we have had so many recent "battlefield" elections lately.

 

taks

 

Absolutely. The US actually has a rather healthy democracy when compared to, say, modern day Taiwan. But that's precisely evidence for why it's the government system, and not the country, that might be at fault.

 

I'm not saying you're daft. I'm saying that you're advocating the biggest most disruptive approach. We need a more slow 'elbow grease' approach. Education, culture change etc.

 

I don't know. Slow, elbow gease approaches have the problem of being so smooth that people barely notice them. If your goal is to restore people's faith in the system, a mass movement (even if it results in an actual compromise) would be much more effective. This is particularly true in the US, where mass movements have a history of shaking things up.

[taks]

But that's precisely evidence for why it's the government system, and not the country, that might be at fault.

actually, i'm more inclined to think it is large population that is at fault. the unfortunate fact is that with 300 million people in the US, it is impossible to have a vote that is "about the issues." candidates running for office, those that can afford it, only have a certain amount of time to get their messages across. even they cannot afford to go down into the details (time, money, etc.). they have to choose what will make them most electable, and that is often a) deride their opponents and b) push their images.

 

in short, i think just about any system will suffer once you get as big as the US is. often, most of the voters have never even heard of the candidates (who besides texans knew who GWB was, other than GB's son, prior to the 2000 election? or kerry and massachussetts?) the people fall prey to their own inability, or unwillingness, to understand what really matters. in fact, now we're to a point that even image isn't a big deal for most. they could care less about what each candidate offers, simply voting "their side" because "the other side" is bad (to them). the only votes that matter are the swing votes in the middle, and those numbers are shrinking.

 

taks

[Azarkon]

Ah yes, partisan politics. The inevitable descent into factions. Thanks for pointing that out, and I agree with you, to a degree, though I'd point out that even small democracies such as the one I noted in Taiwan tend to become unworkable and corrupt over time.

 

However, I don't agree with you on the idea that all systems suffer, inevitably, as the population grows larger. Or at least, that all systems suffer to the same degree. No doubt bureaucratic matters become more difficult with more people - inevitably - but national leadership and vision should, I think, be possible even with a large population. The problems that you mentioned are apparent only in systems where candidates have to "sell themselves," so to speak, to the larger public. But perhaps that's the problem - and a meritocracy seems the obvious solution. When you're measured objectively, rather than subjectively, your personal image does not matter as much. As in the employment world, it's the results that really count.

 

Imagine a presidency that isn't measured by its mere charisma or ability to stir up popular sentiment, but rather by how effectively it creates jobs, ensures national security, and puts forth a vision for the future. That, alone, would be a significant first step. Now imagine a presidency that isn't mired in partisan politics nor ran by entrenched political elites.

 

I think we've still got a long way to go before we can say that we have the "best" form of government achievable by man.

[taks]

Ah yes, partisan politics. The inevitable descent into factions. Thanks for pointing that out, and I agree with you, to a degree, though I'd point out that even small democracies such as the one I noted in Taiwan tend to become unworkable and corrupt over time.

the apparent line in the sand at which this happens is definitely situational.

 

However, I don't agree with you on the idea that all systems suffer, inevitably, as the population grows larger. Or at least, that all systems suffer to the same degree. No doubt bureaucratic matters become more difficult with more people - inevitably - but national leadership and vision should, I think, be possible even with a large population. The problems that you mentioned are apparent only in systems where candidates have to "sell themselves," so to speak, to the larger public. But perhaps that's the problem - and a meritocracy seems the obvious solution. When you're measured objectively, rather than subjectively, your personal image does not matter as much. As in the employment world, it's the results that really count.

again, situational dependence, though i agree it's probably a large swing across differing situations. the meritocracy suffers from the same issues as just about every other system: great on paper, but the will of man perverts the obvious benefits. in particular, defining "objective" criteria revolves around subjective assumptions, which come from man himself.

 

Imagine a presidency that isn't measured by its mere charisma or ability to stir up popular sentiment, but rather by how effectively it creates jobs, ensures national security, and puts forth a vision for the future. That, alone, would be a significant first step. Now imagine a presidency that isn't mired in partisan politics nor ran by entrenched political elites.

unfortunately, as has been pointed out, what may be good for one aspect, may not for another. i.e., many of these "objective" criteria are interdependent. improve one and you may do so at the detriment of another. in the end, you need some subjective "weighting" to make it work, and there will always be opinions on the matter of how to weight them.

 

I think we've still got a long way to go before we can say that we have the "best" form of government achievable by man.

in the signal processing world, this is referred to as "optimal." however, optimal _always_ has to be referred to some measure. e.g. optimal with respect to mean-square error. the terms optimal and/or best are meaningless unless applied to a specific measure. furthermore, optimal or best with respect to one measure typically means sub-optimal with respect to another. hence, some subjective criteria always exist.

 

taks

[Azarkon]

I concede the point. There is always some subjectivity when it comes to humans. What that doesn't mean, though, is that we should be content with maintaining the same degree of subjectivity. One might argue that what differentiates man today from man of the past is his adoption of a rational, objective approach to matters relating to the physical world. It would seem logical, then, that man's next step should be to adopt a rational, objective approach to the social and political world, as well. Hence comes the idea that cultural development has not caught up with scientific progress - which consequently begs the question as to what an objective, rational socio-political system might look like.

 

I thought that the corporate model of training and evaluating executive management was a valid model for what political leadership could look like in the next few centuries, especially as corporations and governments become closer (in what seems to be an inevitability). But maybe I'm wrong. Still, current political systems are in dire need of *some* restructuring - I don't think it'd be wise to be complacent with what we have simply because "democracy is better than the alternative."

 

What alternative?

Edited March 12, 2007 by Azarkon

[taks]

i agree, and i don't know. no matter how many "objective" criteria we set forth, there will always be some loophole for exploitation, and exploit our leaders will. some of the criteria will have inverse relationships (such as improved health care vs. higher taxes, etc.). some may simply have such long-term returns that it is not feasible to accurately assess improvements in the short-term. i think this was evident with the recent CEO of HP (the first woman CEO of a major firm) as a corporate example. she had several long-term mechanisms in place, but the stock-holders were impatient, and out she went. the stock-holders did not give her ideas time to be realized. those mechanisms may have been a bust, too, but we'll never know.

 

the ultimate benefit of a democracy/republic is that the people have a choice. the ultimate "solution" may be something as simple as a smarter populace. one of the problems with ill-informed people is that they are easily led astray by charismatic leaders. as we evolve, perhaps that effect will be lessened. who knows. i doubt any of us will be around to see what happens. i'm guessing we're still a few thousand years from that level of advancement.

 

taks

[metadigital]

It's my personal view that if an objective method existed of differentiating good leadership from bad leadership (in terms of results), the optimal form of government is a constitutional meritocracy, by which I mean an essentially authoritarian government that is selected and replaced by virtue of its performance, but which can never go beyond certain constitutional barriers in terms of what it can do. By analogy, think of corporate management, where popularity among the employees alone won't get you the job, nor allow you to keep it.

 

The obvious problem is coming up with an objective criteria for leadership. If corporate leadership is measured by profitability, what is national leadership measured by? It seems to me that the answer to this question is not, shall we say, intractable. In other words, there can be a definitive answer, and as our answers improve, so will the value of adopting a constitutional meritocracy.

No, actually, the biggest problem is wresting power from people who are deemed to be inappropriate. Good government is self-evident.

 

Of course - democracy only works if the people are willing. But people don't use the system because they lack faith in it. How do you put faith back into the system without giving it a new face lift, at least?

 

I'm not saying you're daft. I'm saying that you're advocating the biggest most disruptive approach. We need a more slow 'elbow grease' approach. Education, culture change etc.

That's the only way it will work.

[taks]

That's the only way it will work.

we all seem to agree on this point. i.e., an educated populace, not one driven by the blowing winds of the media, is the "best" solution. that is one, however, that will take eons to implement. hehe...

 

taks

[Azarkon]

No, actually, the biggest problem is wresting power from people who are deemed to be inappropriate. Good government is self-evident.

 

So would the current US administration be deemed inappropriate or not?

 

(I don't think good governments are necessarily self-evident. A government may seem good to some, but not to others. At any case, wrestling power from bad governments is easy if everyone had faith in the system's objectivity, presuming that we begin the process with a democracy and not a dictatorship.)

 

That's the only way it will work.

 

One might argue that most "massively disruptive" events in history were precipitated by "elbow grease" changes in society, that the greatest leaps were made slowly and steadily. Still, when things come to a head, the final break must still be there - and the end result could still be quite messy ("an end to slavery? Not in my life time!") I'm not saying that we should go out there and change the world tomorrow, but every seed of change has the potential to be seditious.

 

In other words, it's fine to say that progress towards a better society will likely be slow, but you still have to set goals and benchmarks. Depending on education to enlighten the world is great - but only if people are actually learning the right things.

Edited March 12, 2007 by Azarkon

[metadigital]

I'd argue that it is self-evident if the will of the people is being acted out: think of single policy issues. If all the pro-choice advocates went and lived in their own little town, then that issue would not be in question.

 

The problem with the US is it is too big to be an effective representative democracy. Government of that scale will always be a republic (at best) (or a kakistocracy at worst).

[taks]

aye, once the majority realizes it can vote itself the keys to the kingdom, it will, thereby bankrupting itself and resulting in anarchy once again. hehe...

 

taks