The Metaphysics of Philosophy, Knowledge and Morality Chapter 17

Chapter 17
Social order and meritocracy

Any community needs order to prosper. Any order must have some firm basis and an effective enforcement mechanism. The firmer the basis, the weaker the enforcement mechanism and vice versa.

Strong social order is more likely to stifle merit. A weak social order may promote merit, but threatens with disruption and collapse. Meritocracy is a careful balancing act between those two extremes.

There are two key criteria for a meritocracy to function. 1. The social structure must be flexible enough to grant talented people power and office. 2. The citizens must be flexible enough to recognise talent and allow talented people to lead them.

Both criteria are hard to meet. In the north-west, talent can generally find its way to the top. In the south and east, structure is more important than talent, and more often than not, talented people fall by the wayside. As for allowing talent to lead you, people in the north-west accept talented leadership. Whereas in the south and east, the family / clan / tribe you come from is more important than your individual merit. Which explains why north-western democracies are getting closer and closer to meritocracy and why southern and eastern countries are stuck with outdated, rigid, undemocratic leadership.