[MoonPenguin]

By non-democratic meritocracy, I mean a government in which positions of leadership are given to those most capable of fulfilling their post, and where the typical citizen doesn't get to vote in any elections.

Why do you support this system?

How do you propose these individuals are chosen? How do you keep bumbling incompetents from being appointed because of nepotism?

How would you keep the authorities from being decadent and corrupt?

Thanks.

[starman2003]

The reasons for supporting such a system should be obvious; there would finally be effective and rational decision making. The leadership would not only be bright it would be much less encumbered by popular opinion.
Those with an interest and aptitude in statecraft should be identified by testing in high school, then go to special academies, tuition free to ensure that those eligible among the poor can attend. The academies should issue diplomas indicating someone is competent for high, intermediate or low level government work. After that, a trial period of apprenticeship and, if satisfactory, a formal position. I don't think too many bumbling incompetents would rise to the top in that system; nor would there be nepotism.

[Preston Cole]

How do you propose these individuals are chosen? How do you keep bumbling incompetents from being appointed because of nepotism?

I suppose you're thinking of past socialist dictatorships. Indeed, those had nothing to do with meritocracy and some devolved into the lowest forms of nepotism, although hardly worse than democratic nepotism.

Fascism is by nature elitist, and so doesn't let familial strings wind up in key governing positions. People would need to prove they've served in the military, participated in major political events, were schooled expertly in political science and their background checks out as ideologically-aligned. There is a very real danger that an autocratic government could turn to nepotism, as it has done even in Fascist Italy (Ciano and Edda Mussolini), and I can't really think of any solutions to prevent this as nepotism has always happened even in the most totalitarian regimes. You can't really prevent a dictator from appointing who he wants in his government; you need to trust that said dictator is a results-oriented man and ruthless enough to hang his own son-in-law for his country (no pun intended). You could have something like the Fascist Grand Council monitor the dictator's actions and discard him if necessary. The only reason the Fascist Grand Council didn't meet regularly was because of the war.

Nepotism can be controlled, but not exterminated completely.

[Cartertonian]

I don't think too many bumbling incompetents would rise to the top in that system; nor would there be nepotism.

I acknowledge my bias - which is that I am a mental health nurse and teacher and therefore something of a semi-professional student of the human condition - but I regret to conclude that experience has taught us that the first thing human beings do with any system of organisation is find ways to subvert it. If you consider the development of management theories over the last 150 years they have gone from output-driven systems reducing human beings to organic automatons, to inclusive and emotionally-intelligent constructs. Why? Not because we've 'gone soft', but because theoreticians have been forced to acknowledge that the human variable in any organisational structure may not be ignored and remains unpredictable - or at best subject to limited predictability.

Therefore, I would fully expect a system such as that which you describe to start out with the best of intentions but be reduced to a self-serving, nepotistic, tribalist elitism within two generations.

[micollins]

Every leader would be held accountable and open to removal by the individuals below him in the structure. Depending on his indiscretions the removal may not be polite.

[Traianus]

Every leader would be held accountable and open to removal by the individuals below him in the structure.

This is the point, who selects the individuals below in the structure?

I propose the RPG system of merit.

PhD gained - 15,000xp, level up.
Participate in revolution - 1,000,000xp, level up [unlocked - medium level bureaucracy].
200hrs voluntary community service - 600xp
Expose communist plot - 5,000xp

etc, etc.

[J Oswald]

Meritocracy cannot exist without the ability of the common people to remove their corrupt and inefficient leaders. The only way for a meritocracy to be instituted in a purely dictatorial state would be if the variables used to promote people were compiled and computed using solely mechanical means - i.e. endless batteries of mechanically-graded standardized tests, and if the promoters were blinded in some way to the social status of the people they were promoting, such as used when auditioning for an orchestra, where the judges and the performer are separated by an opaque curtain and the performer is only known by a number.

[Potemkin]

Meritocracy cannot exist without the ability of the common people to remove their corrupt and inefficient leaders. The only way for a meritocracy to be instituted in a purely dictatorial state would be if the variables used to promote people were compiled and computed using solely mechanical means - i.e. endless batteries of mechanically-graded standardized tests, and if the promoters were blinded in some way to the social status of the people they were promoting, such as used when auditioning for an orchestra, where the judges and the performer are separated by an opaque curtain and the performer is only known by a number.

This sounds like the classical Chinese imperial state, with a meritocratic bureaucracy and an Emperor who bore the Mandate of Heaven. It should also be pointed out that the Chinese people did have the right to depose a bad Emperor, if they believed that he had lost the Mandate of Heaven.

[Cookie Monster]

It should also be pointed out that the Chinese people did have the right to depose a bad Emperor, if they believed that he had lost the Mandate of Heaven.

But the Mandate of Heaven was not something that was easily to be lost. It would take several natural disasters, a widespread rebellion or numerous defeats in battles against foreigners for people to acknowledge that the Mandate was lost, usually up to the point the new power was already or nearly in place.

[starman2003]

Nepotism can be controlled but not exterminated completely.

Under present circumstances that may be true. But who knows what the future may bring--cloning the best person in every field, perhaps.

The only reason the Fascist Grand Council didn't meet regularly was because of the war

The war was still going on in '43 when it dumped the duce, who by then was too demoralized to resist anyway. Mussolini was supreme as long as he felt fairly confident. What kind of good for nothings were the council members if they didn't meet in the emergencies of wartime? I doubt anything like a fascist council will compete for authority with a great man who wants to be supreme. But that doesn't mean he can get away with any screw-up; history shows that even a strong leader can be killed or dumped.

....start out with the best of intentions but be reduced to a self-serving, nepotistic, tribalist elitism within two generations.

Much depends on the ideological basis of the system--how strong it is. As long as the elite and society believe it's right, degeneracy will be relatively minimal, or perhaps just temporary. No soviet leader was an out and out screwball like commodus, nor were any replaced by their sons.

[Figlio di Moros]

It depends on your definition of "Democracy". One possible structure discussed is "organic democracy", which varies greatly from liberal democracy. I support a classical republic, which would combine organic democracy, a restricted-franchise system, electoral colleges, and an empowered executive.

[Fasces]

Why do you support this system?

A hierarchical meritocracy inherently allows for the most capable to rise, if left alone. Adopting an attitude of "up-or-out", as seen in the military (whereby those individuals who are repeatedly passed by for a promotion due to a lack of ability are eventually discharged), and an inverse rewards ratio (whereby those individuals at the top of the pyramid live in the most spartan manner and without possessions) will encourage those who are both self-sacrificing and capable to rise to the top - the two most important qualities of a benevolent autocrat.

Obviously, however, a pyramid needs a top. To this end, I would actually take a page out of the democratic handbook. Democracy in not inherently bad, after all - it is a problem of who votes, not the act itself. I would, among the top leaders of the hierarchy, allow for citizens to vote for a leader. This comes with caveats on the concept of citizenship. I would class people into two basic political classes: citizens and nationals. All those born of a nation are, by virtue of their blood, culture and language, a part of that nation. Once 16, they may opt to become citizens - after performing at least a year of service for their country. This can be civil, social, or even militant. They may volunteer to be a doctor, a teacher, or even a simple laborer whose services help maintain national infrastructure. Naturally, the proper qualifications would need to be met. At the conclusion of their service, these nationals would become citizens. As citizens, they may participate in the political hierarchy, and this would include voting among a list of candidates (the top three or so in the hierarchy) for an autocrat. This autocrat would be able to be impeached by referendum at any time among citizens - to prevent cronyism in the top echelons of the hierarchy. However, given the fact that the autocrat would live frugally, ingloriously, and perpetually in service, it is unlikely that those that are power-hungry or greedy for wealth would seek the position in the first place.

I appear to have answered all your questions, actually.

It bears adding that this is a simply a rough conception of what my ideal system would look like. It is impractical to implement in the real world, and likely has holes that do not appear in initial thought. It is also incomplete, as I do believe in a degree of economic syndicalism, which would form a parallel system to the political hierarchy, under a single top council and the autocrat.

[starman2003]

..a restricted franchise system...

..it is a problem of who votes, not the act itself..

All pipe dreaming. It can't ever be put into practice as long as democracy lasts. Imagine some politician running on such a plank--"vote for me and I'll take away your vote if you're dumb." The present system will continue as it is until it's totally wrecked by crises.

[Fasces]

Yes, yes. Once again you demonstrate a complete inability to comprehend what you are reading.

[starman2003]

It is impractical to implement in the real world, and likely has holes that do not appear in initial thought.

This at least, is true. Complete waste of time.

[Fasces]

Wholism is inevitable, yes?

[Traianus]

Any non classical liberal/international socialist movement is entirely evitable in the western world as most politically minded people swear unshakeable allegiance to the aforementioned ideologies.

[starman2003]

Wholism is inevitable, yes?

IMO democracy is doomed because it is oriented toward the individual and can't serve the interests of a greater whole--the nation, the planet, the environment. Authoritarianism/wholism/caesarism--whatever you want to call it--is inevitable, or we're finished.

[Figlio di Moros]

Aside from sounding like a teen drama(jocks suck and are ruining society, amirite? ), you leave another, pretty pessimistic alternative.

[starman2003]

..most politically minded people swear unshakeable allegiance to the aforementioned ideologies.

Allegiance to socialism in the west?