Technocracy and Representative Democracy

Some thinkers often question whether a system of representative democracy will lead to government by meritocracy or mediocrity. None of the later do not necessarily follows from the first. People often chose to be represented by a mixed bag of politicians who may promote merit or ideology.

And that is a positive outcome, because history has shown that the idea that governance by technical experts’ leads to a better society is not only wrong but dangerous. Authoritarian regimes of all kinds, from Bismarck’s Germany to Brezhnev’s Soviet Union embraced the idea that government should be entrusted to trained administrators or engineers but failed to achieve the efficiency success they proclaimed.

As the theory goes technocrats, econocrats and bureaucrats are primarily driven by their cognitive "problem-solution mindsets" and only in part by particular occupational group interests.

That is, they are concerned by the means (efficiency) and not the ends. But here lies the danger of ending up accepting that the end justifies the means.

The engineers that built the gas chambers in the German concentration camps might have devised an efficient way of killing millions of Jews but they did not question that they were committing an atrocity. They probably used the old excuse that they were just following orders.

The fashions about which professional class (engineers, economists, lawyers, scientists, doctors, media professionals, etc.) is better placed to govern may change with the regimes but the problem remains.

The selection of leaders by merit under equal opportunity conditions is a desirable process but only if it does not lead to the creation of a separate cast.

To paraphrase the old say: politics is too important to be left to professional experts.

Loony left and wing nuts in American politics

Today the problem for American conservatives (Republicans) is that they seem to be caught in a perverse phase of politics that usually follows a prospective long spell in opposition or a strong leadership (in the Republican’s case Reagan).

During such periods political parties become confused and immerse in fratricide fights between candidates that should never, ever have been considered for leadership. Such second-rate figures of the time, usually called loony leftists or right-wing nuts, take center stage while moderate common sense politicians are simply dismissed as wobbly or wet.

Such periods affect both right and left-wing parties. Recent episodes in the UK were experienced by the Labor Party during the 1980s and by the Conservatives at the beginning of this century. During such periods the parties turn to three types of politicians – nice idealists but foolish, symbolized in the UK by Michael Foot; radical but treacherous, as epitomized by Arthur Scargill; or maverick and devious as represented by Ken Livingstone.

Nowadays one easily finds comparable figures among the American Republicans. Sara Palin falls in the first category, while Newt Gingrich fits the second and Donald Trump represents the third category.

The question is: how can parties regain their sanity and get rid of such potential candidates? Since during such periods prevails a denial of reason, often one has to let time pass by until people regain their senses. Unfortunately, this remedy usually means waiting many years until a new generation of politicians arrives (as the UK Conservatives know too well).

Is this wait inevitable? Not necessarily, if well meaning party members join their efforts to combat this disease and to promote the emergence of a serious competition among a new generation of leaders. Men and Women embedded with the party’s ideals, not sound bites exploiting the ignorance, greed and hurry of the masses. That is why the renaissance of the enlightenment spirit is so important.