The Moral Basis of Political Meritocracy

The Moral Basis of Political Meritocracy

SYMPOSIUM THE CHINA MODEL THE MORAL BASIS OF POLITICAL MERITOCRACY BY ELENA ZILIOTTI © 2017 ² Philosophy and Public Issues (New Series), Vol. 7, No. 1 (2017): 246-270 Luiss University Press E-ISSN 2240-7987 | P-ISSN 1591-0660 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] THE CHINA MODEL The Moral Basis of Political Meritocracy Elena Zilliotti olitical meritocracy is the view that members of the legislative branch must be chosen and promoted on the P basis of their individual skills, character and performance. Democratic and meritocratic theories differ from one another not in the types of political agencies that they support, but in the governmental body to which meritocratic selection criteria apply. Several democratic theories require selecting the members of the judiciary branch through meritocratic mechanisms, but only meritocratic theories allow for the extension of meritocratic selection principles to the composition of the legislature.1 In practice, political meritocracy is compatible with democratic institutions in various ways. Recently, Daniel A. Bell has argued 1 For a defense of meritocratic selection systems outside the legislative branch, VHH 6WHSKHQ 0DFHGR·V FRQVWLWXWLRQDO WKHRU\ RI GHPRFUDF\ ZKHUH MXGLFLDU\ review and regulatory agencies are insulated from direct electoral DFFRXQWDELOLWLHV 6WHSKHQ 0DFHGR ´Meritocratic Democracy: Learning from WKH$PHULFDQ&RQVWLWXWLRQµ in Bell D. and Li C. (eds.), The East Asian Challenge for Democracy: Political Meritocracy in Comparative Perspective, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013, 232î256). Also Philip Pettit claims that a democratic system of a large modern society requires establishing meritocratic agencies WR UHVROYH PDWWHUV LQ WKH VSHFLILF GRPDLQV LQ ZKLFK SHRSOH·V SUHIHUHQFHVDUHTXLWHFOHDU 3KLOLS3HWWLW´0HULWRFUDWLF5HSUHVHQWDWLRQµ%HOO' and Li C. (eds.), The East Asian Challenge for Democracy: Political Meritocracy in Comparative Perspective, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013, 147). © 2017 ² Philosophy and Public Issues (New Series), Vol. 7, No. 1 (2017): 246-270 Luiss University Press E-ISSN 2240-7987 | P-ISSN 1591-0660 Elena Ziliotti ² The Moral Basis of Political Meritocracy for a political system for modern China, in which democratic institutions operate only at the local political level, while meritocratic mechanisms function at the national level.2 Tongdong Bai (2013), Bell (2006) and Joseph Chan (2014; 2013) propose a bicameral system in which meritocratic selection mechanisms choose the members of the upper house, which has the strongest legislative power, while the members of the lower house are chosen by democratic mechanisms.3 Another view is that democratic institutions must have a final say on the choice of the legislative and meritocratic selection and promotion mechanisms of the leaders can be deployed to balance democratic institutions by eQVXULQJ D IXUWKHU FKHFN RQ WKH OHDGHUVKLS·V abilities and effectiveness of the government in relation to the achievement of long-term collective interests (e.g. climate change, security, the use of natural resources, the development of a forward-looking education system).4 Whether we value political meritocracy as an overarching principle of governance or as an auxiliary mechanism to improve 2 Daniel A. Bell, The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015). A similar philosophical theory RI JRYHUQPHQW LV GHYHORSHG E\ 7RQJGRQJ %DL LQ ´$ 0HQFLDQ 9HUVLRQ RI /LPLWHG'HPRFUDF\µ Res Publica, Vol. 14, 2008), 19î34. 3 Tongdong Bai, ´A Confucian Version of Hybrid Regime: How Does It :RUN DQG :K\ ,V ,W 6XSHULRU"µ %HOO ' DQG /L & HGV The East Asian Challenge for Democracy: Political Meritocracy in Comparative Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 55î87. Daniel A. Bell, Beyond Liberal Democracy: Political Thinking for an East Asian Context (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Joseph Chan, ´3ROLWLFDO0HULWRFUDF\DQG0HULWRULRXV5XOH$&RQIXFLDQ 3HUVSHFWLYHµ (Bell D. and Li C. (eds.), The East Asian Challenge for Democracy: Political Meritocracy in Comparative Perspective, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 31î54. 4 , GHIHQG WKLV YLHZ LQ WKH SLHFH ´)URP 'HPRFUDWLF 0HULWRFUDF\ WR 0HULWRFUDWLF'HPRFUDF\:K\3ROLWLFDO0HULWRFUDF\PDWWHUVµLQWKLV9ROXPH 247 Philosophy and Public Issues ² The China Model a democratic decision-making process, the moral justification for meritocratic distributions of legislative power needs to be formulated. Specifically, what gives the most competent and meritorious the right to rule? This is a crucial question for any meritocratic theory which aims to be taken seriously as a political principle by Western scholars. Meritocratic measures are mostly GHIHQGHGLQUHODWLRQWRGHPRFUDF\·VODFNRIHIIHFWLYHQHVVEXWthe reason why political outcomes should matter more than other criteria in the first place is open to question. In fact, non- instrumental defenses of democracy are very popular in the Western context. Some egalitarians contend that democratic institutions are intrinsically good regardless of their outcomes, because they embody the moral equality of the citizens,5 while others maintain that democracy is necessary for achieving equality.6 In contrast, deliberative theorists believe that democracy is the only legitimate form of governance, because 5 Harry Brighouse, ´(JDOLWDULDQLVP DQGHTXDODYDLODELOLW\RISROLWLFDOLQIOXHQFHµ (The Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 4, Issue 2, 1996), 118²141. Thomas Christiano, The Rule of the Many: Fundamental Issues in Democratic Theory (Boulder: Westview Press ´,VGHPRFUDF\PHUHO\DPHDQVWRVRFLDOMXVWLFH"µ Reeve A. and Williams A. (eds.), Real Libertarianism Assessed: political theory after Van Parijs, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 172î´Debate: Estlund on Democratic Authorityµ Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 17, Issue 2, 2009), 228²240. Christopher Griffin, ´'HPRFUDF\ DV D 1RQ-Instrumentally Just 3URFHGXUHµ Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 111, Issue 1, 2003), 111²121. 6 Elisabeth Anderson, ´:KDWLVWKH3RLQWRI(TXDOLW\"µ (Ethics, Vol. 103, Issue 9, 1999), 287î337; ´'HPRFUDF\ Instrumental vs. Non-Instrumental 9DOXHµ (Contemporary Debates in Political Philosophy, Christiano T. and Christman J. (eds.), Oxford: Blackwell, 2009), 213î227 6DPXHO 6FKHIIOHU ´:KDW LV (JDOLWDULDQLVP"µ Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 31, Issue 1, 2003), 5î39. Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice: A Defence of Pluralism and Equality (Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1983). Niko Kolodny, ´5XOH2YHU1RQH,,6RFLDO(TXDOLW\ DQGWKH-XVWLILFDWLRQRI'HPRFUDF\µPhilosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 42, Issue 4, 2004, 287²336). 248 Elena Ziliotti ² The Moral Basis of Political Meritocracy only democracy can provide people a place to develop their preferences and a fair opportunity to influence the decisional outcome.7 Thus, as contemporary meritocratic theories aim to go beyond a Confucian perspective to reach out to a broader audience, a justification of political meritocracy based on some fundamental Western values must be articulated.8 By relating the notion of political meritocracy to the debate on equality of opportunity, this paper illustrates that political meritocracy can be understood as the expression of a principle of substantive equality of political opportunity. I claim that two main tenets should characterize the ideal of political meritocracy: 7 -RVKXD &RKHQ ´'HOLEHUDWLRQ DQG GHPRFUDWLF OHJLWLPDF\µ +DPOLQ $ DQG Pettit P. (eds.), The Good Polity, New York: Basil Blackwell, 1989), 17î34. ´'HPRFUDWLF HTXDOLW\µ Ethics, Vol. 99, Issue 4, 1989), 727î751 ´3URFHGXUe DQG VXEVWDQFH LQ GHOLEHUDWLYH GHPRFUDF\µ %HQKDELE 6 HGV Democracy and Difference, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 95î119. ´)RU D 'HPRFUDWLF 6RFLHW\µ The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, in Freeman S (eds.), Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 86²138. John Dryzek, Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson, Why Deliberative Democracy? (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004). Jurgen Habermas, ´5HFRQFLOLDWLRQ WKURXJK WKH 3XEOLF XVH RI 5HDVRQ 5HPDUNV RQ -RKQ 5DZOV·V 3ROLWLFDO /LEHUDOLVPµ The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 92,1995), 109î31. Between Facts and Norms (Cambridge, MIT Press,1996). ´7KUHH 1RUPDWLYH0RGHOVRI'HPRFUDF\µ 6%HQKDELE HGV Democracy and Difference, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 21î30. 8 This does not exclude the fact that the Confucian justification of meritocratic selection systems remains contested. One criticism is that it is unclear whether WKH&RQIXFLDQFRQFHSWLRQRI¶ZLVGRP·DQG¶PRUDOZRUWKLQHVV·FDQEHVWUHWFKHG WR LQFOXGH WKH ¶H[SHUW-NQRZOHGJH· DGYRFDWHG E\ GHIHQGHUV RI SROLWLFDO meritocracy (Tan Sor-KRRQ´%H\RQG(OLWLVP$&RPPXQLW\Ideal for Modern (DVW$VLDµPhilosophy East and West, Vol. 59, No. 4, 2009, 544. Sungmoon Kim, Confucian Democracy in East Asia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, 80). 249 Philosophy and Public Issues ² The China Model on the one hand, political meritocracy requires selecting and promoting candidates based on their performance, qualities, and skills that are relevant to the political positions; and on the other hand, it ought to provide people with equal chances to develop these abilities and expertise. As such, political meritocracy can compete on an equal footing with another interpretation of the principle of substantive equality of political opportunity, namely democratic equality of fair opportunity. Another reason why the assessment of political meritocracy from an

View Full Text

Details

  • File Type
    pdf
  • Upload Time
    -
  • Content Languages
    English
  • Upload User
    Anonymous/Not logged-in
  • File Pages
    27 Page
  • File Size
    -

Download

Channel Download Status
Express Download Enable

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

  • Not to be reproduced or distributed without explicit permission.
  • Not used for commercial purposes outside of approved use cases.
  • Not used to infringe on the rights of the original creators.
  • If you believe any content infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately.

Support

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us