This is the definition I am using:

a system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated abilities and merit.

  • Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Yes, but it doesn’t last for long. It just takes a few bad apples on top for the system to quickly go corrupt, which is why the powers on top need to constantly fear being changed by the people

    • Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      What do you mean by doesn’t last long? Also if the society was a complete meritocracy what accountability would the people have?

      • Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Well, human judgement is not perfect, and eventually a snake would be able to climb the ranks and corrupt the whole system.

        This is why democracy is the only system that can allow for “constant revolution” and if the current system is broken or corrupt, it’s the only way that allows for a consistent peaceful transfer of power. It is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but as Churchill once said “ Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…”

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          And for when the people in charge decide they’re not going to hand over their power despite being elected out, we have rules about it not being allowed to clear out people’s weapons.

          Basically we do our best to ensure there are no circumstances where those in charge get to ignore those they’re ruling over. It’s a way of solving the agency problem given humans’ tendency to ignore the rules when they want to.

          Another way to put it is that a politician might decide “oh this system of democracy isn’t going to keep me in power, so I’ll just step outside of it to the world of anything goes” and then an armed populace can say “nope, we’ve got moves there too, and they’re way worse for you than getting voted out”.

          It makes the attractiveness of that step outside the system go way down.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      “No! You can’t change me!”

      “Yes we can”

      ::: changes him :::

      “Well, I guess that does feel better”

      “Told you”

    • teawrecks
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Meritocracy just means you’re rewarded proportionally to your contribution. It doesn’t necessarily mean you’re rewarded with authority over anyone.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Actually the “cracy” suffix does refer specifically to the distribution of authority. Democracy is a system in which people decide; not just one in which people do well. Aristocracy is where those people are the deciders, not just where they’re the most wealthy.

        • teawrecks
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          A fair point. I guess I’m used to it being used incorrectly then.