http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/08/25/meritocracy-giving-rise-to-elitism/
[h=2]Meritocracy giving rise to elitism?[/h]
August 25th, 2015 |
Author: Contributions
Since a few years back, there has been a buzz about meritocracy, more
precisely its shortcomings and weaknesses. This is another knock at one of the
legacies of LKY. Researchers, educational authorities, politicians,
politician-wannabes alike have opinionated a lot about the negative aspects of
meritocracy. It is being blamed for the high poverty rate, widening rich-poor
gap, high GINI-coefficient number and, to top them all, elitism. This is an
exercise in revisionism with inverted logic. Meritocracy comes about precisely
to combat those evils.
By
nature, we humans are not born equal, in every sense of that word. In the
history of human civilization, when we came together to form a society and left
it to nature to decide the social outcome, the inequalities led to extreme chasm
between a minority of powerful and rich and a majority of weak and poor. The
rich and powerful formed into an exclusive class or caste and treated the weak
and poor as outcasts. That stirred up a sense of injustice in the latter which
often led to violent rebellions and revolutions. As human civilization advances,
we look for better ways to live together despite our inherent inequalities. The
ideal is to do away with all inequalities and make everyone equal. This would be
a worse horror than having unequal nature.
Instead of trying to achieve equality, it is more pragmatic to do the next
best thing – manage the inequality. Moderate it so that it does not deformed
into extreme and exclusive classes. If we cannot make it equal for everyone, we
can still make it fair for everyone. Its about fair share, i.e., equity rather
than equality. Provides equal opportunity for everyone based solely on an
individual’s ability. That’s what meritocracy is all about. It does not
guarantee equal outcomes, only fair ones. Meritocracy does not eliminate
inequality, only moderates its. Whether its rich-poor gap, GINI coefficient or
elitism, they would be worse without meritocracy.
When everyone is brought to the same starting line, it does not mean that
they start out as equal. What happened before they came to the starting line has
more or less determined the outcome of the race for each one of them. The
temptation would be to make them equal as early in their lives as possible. How
early? How about making everyone of them equal at birth? Produce them like
robots in a factory, all within a certain specification!?
Meritocracy leads to Elitism?
Let’s consider the ruling elites. The analysis applies to elites in other
fields. Nature does not endow everyone with the ability to lead, to be able to
make others to follow them. Those who have that ability are rare and few. It is
natural that people with leadership ability tend to associate better among
themselves. They will become an elite group or class above the rest of the
people because this is what they are; exceptional individuals, rare breeds.
There is the fear that they will become a closed group, working to advance only
their own interest and that of those related to them. When this happens, it will
lead to a perpetual ruling class. In Singapore’s political system, there is no
chance of a self-perpetuating ruling class ever being established. Before a
person can become a member of the ruling elite or a Minister of any sort, that
person would first have to be elected by ordinary people at a local electoral
constituency. All politics start and end at the local level. Its the people who
decide the ruling elites.
Elitism is a natural social phenomenon. Its in every field, trade and
profession. The important thing is that the ruling elites work selflessly for
the interests and benefits of all. More importantly, there must be a system for
continual renewal in the ruling elites with the opportunity to a position opened
equally to all. There must be a system to allow exceptionally capable
individuals to rise to the positions of leadership they deserve based only on
their leadership abilities. This is where meritocracy comes into play. It
ensures that the rights to join the elites will not be restricted in any other
way besides ability. The end result is that we will always have people in
government who can truly govern and leaders who can truly lead. This in turn
benefits the masses.
Are there better alternatives to meritocracy?
Egalitarianism
Equality is proclaimed as part of nationhood by many nations. In the US
Declaration of Independence, our own Constitution, Pledge and Flag express the
ideal of equality in different ways. Its pure ‘heartware’. The hard reality is
vastly different.
Egalitarianism-based Communism aimed to achieve economic equality for all.
When put into practice, it did not last more than a century. Why did it fail?
The better ones are not willing to produce better outputs because the rewards
are the same for everyone. It ended with everyone equally poor. For the same
reason, egalitarianism in politics will end up with everyone equally weak and in
education, it will end up with everyone equally dumb. Egalitarianism is a
leveling down philosophy.
Inclusiveness
This is becoming a new value being trumpeted aloud. Instead of meritocracy,
government Ministers are talking about inclusiveness, tilting the field to favor
the poor, more opportunities for the less privileged, etc. There is even the
claim that an innovative society and an inclusive society goes hand-in-hand.
Question is, is inclusiveness equality or equity? It is selective equality. It
is trying to make selected groups equal to the rest, no matter what make them
different in the first place.
Inclusiveness is opening up a Pandora’s box. Inclusion based on what? Income,
age, gender, race, religion, language, nationality, single-parenthood, physical
disadvantage, ex-criminal, trade and profession…? There’s no end. In any society
the lower income forms the majority. They should be the majority everywhere?
Women is demanding more representation in companies’ Board of Directors. By
gender, they should be 50% everywhere? Inclusiveness is a leveling down value.
Being more inclusive means having less for everyone.
Inclusive to what extend? Include all sorts of defects? It would encourage
the growth and spread of defects. Our society would be one riddled with
defective members. When Singapore were struggling up against international
competitions, the government exhorted our people to be rugged, to be
competitive. We hardly noticed those who could not make it.Now that we can
afford it, we want to take good care of them, to the extent of according them
special privileges. We may overdo it. People would prefer to be weak in order to
be better taken care of. When the competition has gotten tougher with
globalisation, the government should be exhorting our people to be more rugged
and be more intelligent. Instead we are going soft. We are talking about
‘heartware’. Are we doing our people a favor? Is the government preparing them
well for the future?
Instead of efforts to share out the cake more fairly, it is wiser to put
those efforts into making the cake bigger and better. Otherwise, one day those
who put more effort into making the cake will call it a day. The end result
would be that everyone will have a shrinking piece of cake.
Whether its 50 years before or 50 years ahead, old era or new era, certain
basics should not be changed. We should be striving for progressive changes,
those which will make the nation better. Is replacing meritocracy with
inclusiveness a progressive
change?
meritinclude
*
Submitted by TRE reader.
[h=2]Meritocracy giving rise to elitism?[/h]
August 25th, 2015 |
Author: Contributions
Since a few years back, there has been a buzz about meritocracy, more
precisely its shortcomings and weaknesses. This is another knock at one of the
legacies of LKY. Researchers, educational authorities, politicians,
politician-wannabes alike have opinionated a lot about the negative aspects of
meritocracy. It is being blamed for the high poverty rate, widening rich-poor
gap, high GINI-coefficient number and, to top them all, elitism. This is an
exercise in revisionism with inverted logic. Meritocracy comes about precisely
to combat those evils.
By
nature, we humans are not born equal, in every sense of that word. In the
history of human civilization, when we came together to form a society and left
it to nature to decide the social outcome, the inequalities led to extreme chasm
between a minority of powerful and rich and a majority of weak and poor. The
rich and powerful formed into an exclusive class or caste and treated the weak
and poor as outcasts. That stirred up a sense of injustice in the latter which
often led to violent rebellions and revolutions. As human civilization advances,
we look for better ways to live together despite our inherent inequalities. The
ideal is to do away with all inequalities and make everyone equal. This would be
a worse horror than having unequal nature.
Instead of trying to achieve equality, it is more pragmatic to do the next
best thing – manage the inequality. Moderate it so that it does not deformed
into extreme and exclusive classes. If we cannot make it equal for everyone, we
can still make it fair for everyone. Its about fair share, i.e., equity rather
than equality. Provides equal opportunity for everyone based solely on an
individual’s ability. That’s what meritocracy is all about. It does not
guarantee equal outcomes, only fair ones. Meritocracy does not eliminate
inequality, only moderates its. Whether its rich-poor gap, GINI coefficient or
elitism, they would be worse without meritocracy.
When everyone is brought to the same starting line, it does not mean that
they start out as equal. What happened before they came to the starting line has
more or less determined the outcome of the race for each one of them. The
temptation would be to make them equal as early in their lives as possible. How
early? How about making everyone of them equal at birth? Produce them like
robots in a factory, all within a certain specification!?
Meritocracy leads to Elitism?
Let’s consider the ruling elites. The analysis applies to elites in other
fields. Nature does not endow everyone with the ability to lead, to be able to
make others to follow them. Those who have that ability are rare and few. It is
natural that people with leadership ability tend to associate better among
themselves. They will become an elite group or class above the rest of the
people because this is what they are; exceptional individuals, rare breeds.
There is the fear that they will become a closed group, working to advance only
their own interest and that of those related to them. When this happens, it will
lead to a perpetual ruling class. In Singapore’s political system, there is no
chance of a self-perpetuating ruling class ever being established. Before a
person can become a member of the ruling elite or a Minister of any sort, that
person would first have to be elected by ordinary people at a local electoral
constituency. All politics start and end at the local level. Its the people who
decide the ruling elites.
Elitism is a natural social phenomenon. Its in every field, trade and
profession. The important thing is that the ruling elites work selflessly for
the interests and benefits of all. More importantly, there must be a system for
continual renewal in the ruling elites with the opportunity to a position opened
equally to all. There must be a system to allow exceptionally capable
individuals to rise to the positions of leadership they deserve based only on
their leadership abilities. This is where meritocracy comes into play. It
ensures that the rights to join the elites will not be restricted in any other
way besides ability. The end result is that we will always have people in
government who can truly govern and leaders who can truly lead. This in turn
benefits the masses.
Are there better alternatives to meritocracy?
Egalitarianism
Equality is proclaimed as part of nationhood by many nations. In the US
Declaration of Independence, our own Constitution, Pledge and Flag express the
ideal of equality in different ways. Its pure ‘heartware’. The hard reality is
vastly different.
Egalitarianism-based Communism aimed to achieve economic equality for all.
When put into practice, it did not last more than a century. Why did it fail?
The better ones are not willing to produce better outputs because the rewards
are the same for everyone. It ended with everyone equally poor. For the same
reason, egalitarianism in politics will end up with everyone equally weak and in
education, it will end up with everyone equally dumb. Egalitarianism is a
leveling down philosophy.
Inclusiveness
This is becoming a new value being trumpeted aloud. Instead of meritocracy,
government Ministers are talking about inclusiveness, tilting the field to favor
the poor, more opportunities for the less privileged, etc. There is even the
claim that an innovative society and an inclusive society goes hand-in-hand.
Question is, is inclusiveness equality or equity? It is selective equality. It
is trying to make selected groups equal to the rest, no matter what make them
different in the first place.
Inclusiveness is opening up a Pandora’s box. Inclusion based on what? Income,
age, gender, race, religion, language, nationality, single-parenthood, physical
disadvantage, ex-criminal, trade and profession…? There’s no end. In any society
the lower income forms the majority. They should be the majority everywhere?
Women is demanding more representation in companies’ Board of Directors. By
gender, they should be 50% everywhere? Inclusiveness is a leveling down value.
Being more inclusive means having less for everyone.
Inclusive to what extend? Include all sorts of defects? It would encourage
the growth and spread of defects. Our society would be one riddled with
defective members. When Singapore were struggling up against international
competitions, the government exhorted our people to be rugged, to be
competitive. We hardly noticed those who could not make it.Now that we can
afford it, we want to take good care of them, to the extent of according them
special privileges. We may overdo it. People would prefer to be weak in order to
be better taken care of. When the competition has gotten tougher with
globalisation, the government should be exhorting our people to be more rugged
and be more intelligent. Instead we are going soft. We are talking about
‘heartware’. Are we doing our people a favor? Is the government preparing them
well for the future?
Instead of efforts to share out the cake more fairly, it is wiser to put
those efforts into making the cake bigger and better. Otherwise, one day those
who put more effort into making the cake will call it a day. The end result
would be that everyone will have a shrinking piece of cake.
Whether its 50 years before or 50 years ahead, old era or new era, certain
basics should not be changed. We should be striving for progressive changes,
those which will make the nation better. Is replacing meritocracy with
inclusiveness a progressive
change?
meritinclude
*
Submitted by TRE reader.