The US is facing a rapid political and social evolution. Within this change, two movements are noticeable: an unrelenting meritocratic gospel and a drive toward more democracy within bureaucratic regulatory and public institutions. Critical to the former evolution, a professionalized meritocracy remains more enthusiastic and realistic, making it preferable to increased bureaucratic democracy.
Background
Meritocracy is an economic and social ideal that presupposes that ability and effort are the only legitimate determinants of status and power. In the US, this ideal is popular because it advances four primary arguments: competition for power and wealth is open, people have equal access to opportunities, discrimination based on sex, ethnicity, and other categorical characteristics is unacceptable, and natural talents are the main if not only guaranteed means to social mobility (Wooldridge). These foundational elements show that a professionalized meritocracy is only possible when all people respect the supremacy of competence and refrain from patronage and nepotism, allowing only the best to earn paid work and socio-political statuses. Although these visions are compelling, they endure criticism from elites and other stakeholders, who view them as overly ambitious and misleading. In his book, The Meritocracy Trap, Daniel Markovits exposes these rather fantastic promises of meritocracy, saying what it does at best is to divide society and oppress the middle class. According to Markovits, meritocracy creates a unique elite with new education and work standards, stifling rather than fostering social mobility.
On the one hand, a privileged elite accesses expensive education and job opportunities limited only to the economically advantaged. On the other hand, a marginalized middle class lacks the power to enable its social mobility. The middle class’s children cannot afford the education and job opportunities available to the elite, and these obstacles create a permanent boundary between these groups. These criticisms open up a broader debate over whether a professionalized meritocracy is preferable to increased bureaucratic democracy in a country where the political landscape is rapidly evolving.
Over time, the country has witnessed increased democracy within its bureaucratic institutions. Bureaucratized democracy entails the participation, engagement, and consultation of individuals and communities in managing and regulating otherwise rigid public organizations (Rahman & Gilman 143). This movement aims to increase the government’s accountability and transparency by allowing people to weigh their expertise in the affairs that touch their lives. Like professionalized meritocracy, such engagement, participation, and consolation face various criticisms. One such criticism is that communities do not (at least not entirely) trust the government (Rahman & Gilman 142–143). The lack of trust in government institutions is, to a large extent, understandable, with a few cases explaining why. First, the US government has historically been inefficient in how it addresses the problems facing minorities, including people of color and natives. A good experiment rests in the massive incarceration of blacks, which remains disproportionate to their population. Secondly, the country has faced numerous issues that give a more significant reason for questioning its intent, with the alleged 2016 presidential election malpractices remaining a critical historical issue. Public organizations endure a fair share of the criticism. Among other issues, these organizations bestow substantial power on their executive officers, who make most decisions. An even more pressing concern is how these organizations pay their CEOs excessively while their bottom-most workers suffer. In light of these challenges, democracy within bureaucracies remains a controversial topic.
Yet, one cannot deny that meritocracy creates a compelling vision for the future. Wooldridge observes that it would have been impossible for people like Barack Obama and Kamala Harris to imagine their fates if they had grown up in an aristocratic society. By cultivating a culture of competence, society gives hope to those who would otherwise never shine, not because they lack the ability and talent but because they are made to believe they are incapable. Therefore, a professionalized meritocracy is preferable to a more bureaucratic democracy because the former makes people enthusiastic about success rather than proud of deceptive civic power they never actually enjoy.
Conclusion
A professionalized meritocracy is better than a more bureaucratic democracy, as the former is more realistic.
Works Cited
Markovits, Daniel. The Meritocracy trap: How America’s Foundational Myth feeds Inequality, dismantles the Middle Class, and devours the Elite. Penguin UK, 2019.
Rahman, K. Sabeel, and Hollie Russon Gilman. Of, for, and by the people: Rebuilding American democracy in an era of crisis. Cambridge University Press, 2019.
Wooldridge, Adrian. “The Aristocracy of Talent: How Meritocracy Made the Modern World.” The Forum Network, 30 July 2021, www.oecd-forum.org/posts/the-aristocracy-of-talent-how-meritocracy-made-the-modern-world-by-adrian-wooldridge.
write