Is a Meritocratic Oligarchy Superior to a Democratic Republic?

Is a Meritocratic Oligarchy Superior to a Democratic Republic?

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 26.9%
  • No

    Votes: 41 61.2%
  • Other

    Votes: 8 11.9%

  • Total voters
    67

David Vagamundo

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
4,439
Atlanta, Georgia USA
I finally voted after rereading most all the comments, but with my vote qualified as to apply only to the species of "socialistic meritocratic oligarchy" espoused by Analysis, Mathfan, and You loveme on this thread.

The proponents were, in my opinion, unconvincing that the program would work or that it would be an improvement and the proponents had no answer to the problem of nepotism or corruption. Reliance on the good will of the oligarchs is, in my view, misplaced; it has not worked in the past and will not work in the future.

"Democracy" as practiced in the US has a lot of problems, but I can't see that the sort of oligarchy espoused in this thread would solve any of them, but I can see that it would create a lot of problems that we do not currently have.
 

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,503
Londinium
I finally voted after rereading most all the comments, but with my vote qualified as to apply only to the species of "socialistic meritocratic oligarchy" espoused by Analysis, Mathfan, and You loveme on this thread.

The proponents were, in my opinion, unconvincing that the program would work or that it would be an improvement and the proponents had no answer to the problem of nepotism or corruption. Reliance on the good will of the oligarchs is, in my view, misplaced; it has not worked in the past and will not work in the future.

"Democracy" as practiced in the US has a lot of problems, but I can't see that the sort of oligarchy espoused in this thread would solve any of them, but I can see that it would create a lot of problems that we do not currently have.
I agreed with the entirety of this post, this and the previous page, made a very good summation of this thread and the inherent flaws of the government model put forward. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Dec 2017
266
USA
I finally voted after rereading most all the comments, but with my vote qualified as to apply only to the species of "socialistic meritocratic oligarchy" espoused by Analysis, Mathfan, and You loveme on this thread.
Why are you under the impression that my proposal is necessarily "socialist" in nature? I have never stated this
 
Dec 2017
266
USA
"Democracy" as practiced in the US has a lot of problems, but I can't see that the sort of oligarchy espoused in this thread would solve any of them, but I can see that it would create a lot of problems that we do not currently have.
The US already functions as a form of 'oligarchy' in many ways--it simply is not labeled as such for PR reasons. That is, one's vote has 0 direct influence on policy of any kind, this is how we get poll results with large majorities of the country for specific policies that are never implemented. Instead, representatives are elected by members of the public who are of age, and these representatives hold managerial power, not the public. Further, there is no true merit required to become a representative, just a vote by public majority. Also, it is asking a very small group of people to essentially dictate policy in all areas--the vast majority of which are outside of their expertise. Of course, the Supreme Court is a non-elected small body of oligarchs who wield significant power in the Nation as well as the President who holds great power.

A real Democracy, i.e. open vote on public policies, would look very different indeed. The current form of "Western Liberal Democracies" are an off-shoot/branch off of a truly Democratic system, rather than Democratic themselves
 

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,503
Londinium
Sure, when it is

And when it isn't and where it isn't, it isn't
Your response doesn't address anything, except highlights David V's summary.

Anyway, back to our discussion. If those character traits you gave (as quoted by me in post 60 and below) are sufficient to prevent people putting into practice their prefference of government, why not also prevent them from publicly promoting and defending their preference(by means of free speech)?

No, but citizens are not ideal voting members of a democracy either. So the ones with political power should be the altruistic, merited, tenured, and virtuous kind.
 

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,503
Londinium
A real Democracy, i.e. open vote on public policies, would look very different indeed. The current form of "Western Liberal Democracies" are an off-shoot/branch off of a truly Democratic system, rather than Democratic themselves
And is your proposal for a 'meritocracy' designed to create a 'real democracy'?
 
Dec 2017
266
USA
And is your proposal for a 'meritocracy' designed to create a 'real democracy'?
Compared to our current system (USA), in some ways it is more 'Democratic', in other ways less so. To be more to the point, in the sense of 'real' Democracy that I have defined--no, the Meritocracy is specifically structured to have more qualified people having greater influence in society (i.e. 'Rule by Experts' rather than 'Rule by open Public Majority')
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,609
Las Vegas, NV USA
GOVERNMENT OF SINGAPORE | Facts and Details

Perhaps it has been already mentioned, but Singapore might be a better actualization of the goal of the oligarchic concept described in this thread. The "oligarchy" in Singapore is the active membership of the People's Action Party (PAP) which has been in power for over 50 years. The main difference is that there are elections and other political parties exist, but the PAP typically gets over 80% of the vote. Almost from the first, the people were satisfied with their government and kept it in power. The main traits required for good government include honesty and integrity, getting the right people in the right positions , and setting realistic long term policy goals with a view toward promoting safety, prosperity, stability and a decent standard of living for all the people. It's not at all clear to me that IQ is the sole or even the most important factor in a good office holder or civil servant. As far as voting, if the people are satisfied, why not keep their government in power? If they are not satisfied, why keep the government power even if they have a high IQs?
 
Last edited:

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,503
Londinium
Compared to our current system (USA), in some ways it is more 'Democratic', in other ways less so. To be more to the point, in the sense of 'real' Democracy that I have defined--no, the Meritocracy is specifically structured to have more qualified people having greater influence in society (i.e. 'Rule by Experts' rather than 'Rule by open Public Majority')
Empahsis mine. If thats what you think a democracy is, you don't know what a democracy is. Which goes someway to explaining this thread.