The above video tries to explore the idea of marrying Democracy and Meritocracy values into one system. In real life, currently, we do not have a system in which both values could be incorporated in a balance manner. For an example, in the West, Democracy is being valued more, thus the systems lean toward mediocre leaders with greatest popularity. In the East, the opposite case mostly occurs. Still, there probably are situations that smooth sailing does occur for the West, and bad sailing does occur for the East. This is a luck and bad luck happenstances. For an example, the people in the West might just pick the best leaders by chance, thus the system could be run by the most popular leaders who are not mediocre. In the East, bad luck could occur, thus the system could have corrupted, mediocre leaders who hold the positions of power and don’t want to relinquish such powerful positions — thus they become unpopular for sure.
The luck and bad luck happenstances are the unexpected elements, thus these things are beyond the control of the system. What people want are the system that can be configured in a way that ensures the highest chance of electing the best leaders that could run the country in the best manner if possible. Unfortunately, electing is more of a popularity contest than electing the best leaders. Why? Election is about who got more votes, and thus in theory anyone could be running for a position to get votes. Strangers vote for each other — it’s more about who appears to be the most competence gets the popularity — thus getting the position. In the Meritocracy system, a pretender who could keep the act together might also appear to be competence, thus fooling the previous leaders who vouch for his or her promotion. Still, the Meritocracy system is built to ensure the highest chance of picking leaders according to meritocracy values.
When marrying Democracy with Meritocracy, we’re running into a direct conflict. Democracy encourages the priority of voting while Meritocracy encourages the priority of strictly observing/testing before a promotion. Thus, in reality we don’t see any system which distributes equal powers to Democracy and Meritocracy. In China, I think some local regions do have elections, but it’s obviously one party state — so there is no true election at the very top. So the true dilemma is how are we marrying the Democracy and Meritocracy together?
I have an idea! Why don’t we have a constitution that ensures a house of Democracy which governs by election, but the house of Democracy is there to examine the performances of the most popular leaders who had gotten the positions through the voting process. After the leaders’ terms are up, they need to be either promoted to longer term positions according to their performance-report-cards, but if their performances are poor they could be demoted or even be impeached. Once they got promoted to longer term positions they could move into the house of Meritocracy. Still, even once they reach the house of Meritocracy, more examinations must be done to ensure that the leaders within the house of Meritocracy are truly excellent. If they’re just pretending to be excellent at their jobs, they could still be impeached within the house of Meritocracy.
Well, I think the idea I suggest above could be tested out for the case of marrying Democracy and Meritocracy together. It’s like the people got to participate in a popularity contest before the real leaders could eventually be recognized. Such a system does provide layers of examinations of our leaders so they could not take it easy and get so corrupted such as becoming lazy in serving people, involving in corruptions and scandals, and so forth. What do you think?