Is Democracy a good thing?

Still as wise and reasonable as ever too.

I would argue that 'merit' is based on the ability to fufill a task to the highest designated standard that a person or people want. If someone does the task but does it badely, they do not have 'merit' while if someone does the selected task and does it to a degree deemed acceptable to others (or himself perhaps) then they have merit. Some things classed as merit come down to subjective opinion (maybe?), but other things such as being able to do mathmatics and have a high understanding of it, will definetly be based on merit if one wishes to do the sums correctly.

So how are you applying that definition to governance?

First you said it is common sense. Then you said you do not have any common sense (at least that is what I take from your post where you said you are not an expert and can't be expected to say what constitutes merit for rulers. )

The problem I see is really contained in your notion that it is common sense: what that does is deny there are real differences in what people want. But those differences really exist and they are really important.

From your last post I cannot distinguish "merit" from "skill". But let us imagine there are merits which politicians actually have: and you define that merit as being able to fulfill a task to the highest standard. So now, if we take Vninect's example, the politician who solves the poverty problem by killing all the poor people meets your criterion; if he does it without any civil unrest, and quite cheaply, he has done it really well. So he is the most meritorious politician around, apparently. Except I don't think so. Honestly!. I think it would be legitimate to assassinate such a politician.

Edited by FionaK - 24/1/2012, 19:36

It seems to me that the problem is at least partly verbal: the word " merit " can be used as a term of commendation or it can used in a value-neutral way.

Perhaps it would tidy the discussion up if we knew which attributes count as merits ( value-neutral) and why they are then to count as merits ( commendation) fitting the possessors to rule. Take education, for instance. It is an obvious matter of fact that some are educated to a certain standard and others are not. But it neither obvious nor purely a matter of fact if we go on to say that it is right for the educated and wrong for the uneducated to have a say in governance.

Not particularly, being an expert on a subject and having commen sense are two diffrent things.


I'm not saying 'one size fits all' when it comes to common sense. Just that if one wishs to have a certain thing, certain alternatives are obviously better then others to acheive it using simple deduction.


I would argue that this would not count as merit, if people have certain expectations on how a politician should handle the events. If we look from a pratical view point, yes. That would count as merit. But if people do not think a good politician should do such a thing because they violate for example Human rights, this can not be said to be an action of merit. For politicians, there are certain restrictions one must abide to if one is considered to have 'merit', depending on what that particular society or culture thinks of as 'merit'. In our society, this action would not be one of merit as people disprove of it, but in another people may think otherwise.

Won't do, ex nihilo.

1.If it is common sense, as you said it was, then it cannot require expertise.

2. You are still trading on the ambiguity of the word merit: have you thought about Lord Muck's post?

3. You said that merit consists in " the ability to fufill a task to the highest designated standard that a person or people want." Do I now take it you are giving up that definition? Seems so.

Perhaps 'commen sense' is the wrong word.


Kinda confused about what he means. Might need to be further explained in simpler terms (because it appears, I am stupid).


Yep.

Well I cannot speak for Lord Muck, but what he is saying seems to me to be related to what I am saying. So let me try to explain better what I mean, to see if that helps.

The issue as I see it is what should we look to in choosing those who govern us. If that is also your understanding, then I think this part of the thread arose from my challenge to the notion of "merit" as a criterion. And then we seem to have got mired in meaning, again.

"Merit" can be used in a number of ways. Part of my problem with your position is that you slide between those meanings and I think you are not very aware of doing so: but it confuses me.

One meaning can be said to be value-free: that is it is a matter of pure fact. So if one gets a qualification in fixing cars and that is awarded a "merit" when the skill is tested then it can be assumed that the person who gets that "pass with merit" is better than average at fixing cars. That is an objective test of a skill and that is all it is: it says nothing at all about that person's character or virtue or excellence at all. They might be a bank robber on the side, but it is irrelevant. That is the meaning you adopt when you talk of how to judge on "merit", for skills: and the only difference I can see between "merit" in this sense, and "skill" is one of degree: the person with "merit" has more skill. Of course one can say that anyone with just a pass on that test has more "merit" than someone who has not learned the skill at all. But that is quite a peculiar use of the word "merit".

The reason it is peculiar is because "merit" carries a different sense. It implies a value judgement, which is quite separate from skill. Thus one can say that someone made a "meritorious effort" even if they completely fail on the objective criterion: for example one could say that a one-legged person who entered a race performed with "merit", even if they came last. That is related to effort, committment, performance better than could be expected given the limitations. Essentially it is a term of approval, and so it is divorced from skill.

Turning to the question of governance one must separate the two ideas and take them in turn. That is Lord Muck's point. First one must answer the question "what are the skills which are helpful for governing?". You say that cannot be answered: in which case the whole idea of judging on "merit" must fall. If there are no skill criteria we can adopt we cannot judge whether someone has those skills. So they have to be identified if we are to proceed.

But let us suppose you are wrong. One can imagine a list of skills which might be said to be necessary. For example, if one is in a demcracy one must have the ability to get elected, else you cannot do anything else. So one could say that one must be "personable" and "have the ability to inspire confidence/trust in a lot of people" and "have the ability to get a lot of people to give you money for your campaign". The objective test for that is the election itself: so anyone elected passes with merit, one might say.


Then once elected on might say one must have "the ability to present what you want to do in an acceptable light for the majority" and to "keep the support of other politicians so your measures get passed". These are all skills, arguably. They are also readily characterised as "an ability to deceive" if one happens to be a cynic. Yet "the ability to deceive" is not considered as a "merit" as that word is normally used. It qualifies in the way you used it:and that is what my reference to Vninect's example was meant to show: one can be a really skilled blackmailer or drug dealer: we can acknowledge the skill: but we would not normally call it meritorious. Again that is because "merit" does not just mean skill: in this sense it is value laden: and that is what you acknowledged in your response to Vninect's scenario.

Machiavelli is the best exponent of politics as skill: his approach is to excise the values from politics in favour of what works: and as ever the question is "works for whom or for what". He is perfectly clear: works to retain and enhance the prince's power. There is little doubt that if that is the aim his book is a great manual for the use and retention of power. But few would call it meritorious to pursue that course: kings and oligarchs might: but not most of us. It legitmises the retention of power as the ultimate aim: most of us would like to see power used for some other goal, I would contend.

And there is the rub: who is fit to govern depends on the goal. But that is where the danger lies. Everybody wants to make a better society. We have very different pictures of what a better society looks like: and very different ideas about how to achieve it, no matter what that picture might be. These are enormous differences, and they cannot be reconciled. It does not matter what your common sense tells you about what qualities might be helpful in achieving those aims: because the aims are not agreed. In fact, assuming we could identify those skills, the appointment of people who have them in spades is the worst thing we could do. Because they will pursue what seems good to them and they will do it with skill. The better they are the harder to challenge when the outcomes they seek are detrimental to the interests of others. There are no perfectly disinterested people: no geniuses who can understand the workings of society perfectly from every point of view and then develop a policy which benefits everyone: because our interests do not coincide and cannot coincide. It follows that we have to have mechanisms whereby decisions which are truly damaging to one group or individual have to be open to refusal: and the only way we can do that, as I see it, is to give everyone an equal and effective means of defending their core interests. To me a democracy which functions well is the best we have developed for doing that: it is not perfect but it is important. We have a responsibility to take an interest in what is done and we also have "enlightened self interest" to motivate us.

Politics cannot be divorced from values. It will never be a matter of objective fact and "right answers" no matter how much people wish it were; nor how uncomfortable they are with the messiness of uncertainty; no matter how much they want to be lazy and rely on strong, or wise, or intelligent, or rich, or blonde leaders to take on the responsibility: it can't be done. Inherently, inescapably, permanently impossible. At least, so I think.

I take the view that it is not what you are that matters: it is what you do. . I cannot know what you are, even in principle: but I can see what you do, at least to some extent.

Well, I do not think you are stupid. However, since my views have been mentioned, let me try again.

If meritocracy is mentioned with approval, I ask:

1. What counts as a merit? ( It may be education, wealth, intelligence, birth or whatever)

2. Do those who are thought to have this merit ( whatever it may be) in fact have it?

3. Why does this merit ( whatever it may be) justify privilege?


By the bye, the word meritocracy, in its modern version, was not coined as a term of praise:
www.worldwidewords.org/topicalwords/tw-mer1.htm