Editing Meritocracy (section)

==History==
===Imperial China===
{{Further|Chinese Legalism|Imperial examinations}}
{{Conservatism in China}}
Some of the earliest example of an administrative meritocracy, based on civil service examinations, dates back to [[Ancient China]].<ref name="APHq">Kazin, Edwards, and Rothman (2010), 142. ''One of the oldest examples of a merit-based civil service system existed in the imperial bureaucracy of China.''</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Tan|first1=Chung|first2=Yinzheng|last2=Geng|title= India and China: twenty centuries of civilization interaction and vibrations|year=2005|publisher=University of Michigan Press|page=128|quote=China not only produced the world's first "bureaucracy", but also the world's first "meritocracy"}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Konner|first=Melvin|title=Unsettled: an anthropology of the Jews|url=https://archive.org/details/unsettledanthrop00konn|url-access=registration|year=2003|publisher=Viking Compass|page=[https://archive.org/details/unsettledanthrop00konn/page/217 217]|isbn=9780670032440|quote=China is the world's oldest meritocracy}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Tucker|first1=Mary Evelyn|year=2009|title=Touching the Depths of Things: Cultivating Nature in East Asia|journal=Ecology and the Environment: Perspectives from the Humanities|page=51|publisher=[[Harvard Divinity School]]|quote=To staff these institutions, they created the oldest meritocracy in the world, in which government appointments were based on civil service examinations that drew on the values of the Confucian Classics}}</ref>{{efn|name=fna}} The concept originates, at least by the sixth century BC, when it was advocated by the Chinese philosopher [[Confucius]], who "invented the notion that those who govern should do so because of merit, not of inherited status. This sets in motion the creation of the imperial examinations and bureaucracies open only to those who passed tests".<ref>{{cite book|last=Sienkewicz|first=Thomas J.|title=Encyclopedia of the Ancient World|year=2003|publisher=Salem Press|page=434|quote=Confucius invented the notion that those who govern should so because of merit and not inherited status, setting in motion the creation of the imperial examinations and bureaucracies open only to those who passed tests.}}</ref>

As the [[Qin dynasty|Qin]] and [[Han dynasty|Han]] dynasties developed a meritocratic system in order to maintain power over a large, sprawling empire, it became necessary for the government to maintain a complex network of officials.<ref name="BC" /> Prospective officials could come from a rural background and government positions were not restricted to the nobility. Rank was determined by merit, through the [[civil service examination]]s, and education became the key for social mobility.<ref name="BC">Burbank and Cooper (2010), 51.</ref> After the fall of the Han dynasty, the [[nine-rank system]] was established during the [[Three Kingdoms]] period.

According to the ''[[Princeton Encyclopedia of American History]]'':<ref name="APH">Kazin, Edwards, and Rothman (2010), 142.</ref>

{{Blockquote|One of the oldest examples of a merit-based civil service system existed in the imperial bureaucracy of China. Tracing back to 200 B.C., the Han dynasty adopted [[Confucianism]] as the basis of its political philosophy and structure, which included the revolutionary idea of replacing nobility of blood with one of virtue and honesty, and thereby calling for administrative appointments to be based solely on merit. This system allowed anyone who passed an examination to become a government officer, a position that would bring wealth and honor to the whole family. In part due to Chinese influence, the first European civil service did not originate in Europe, but rather in India by the British-run [[East India Company]]... company managers hired and promoted employees based on competitive examinations in order to prevent corruption and favoritism.}}

===Ancient Greece===
Both [[Plato]] and [[Aristotle]] advocated meritocracy, Plato in his ''[[The Republic (Plato)|The Republic]]'', arguing that the wisest should rule, and hence the rulers should be [[philosopher king]]s.<ref>See Estlund (2003) for a summary and discussion.</ref>

===Islamic World===
The [[Rashidun Caliphate|Rashidun caliphate]] succession rule was based on meritocracy (Most renown people for their merit would gather in a [[Shura|Shura assembly]] and choose the caliph based on merit). As the first caliph of the Rashidun caliphate, [[Abu Bakr]] was not a monarch and never claimed such a title; nor did any of his three successors. Rather, their election and leadership were based upon merit.<ref>{{cite book | url=https://archive.org/details/islam0000alko/page/44/mode/2up | isbn=9780761421207 | title=Islam | year=2007 | last1=Alkouatli | first1=Claire | publisher=Marshall Cavendish }}</ref>

After the reforms of [[Mehmed II]], the Ottoman standing army was recruited from the ''[[Devshirme|devşirme]]'', a group that took Christian subjects at a young age (8–20 yrs): they were converted to Islam, then schooled for administration or the military [[Janissary|Janissaries]]. This was a meritocracy which "produced from among their alumni four out of five [[Grand vizier|Grand Viziers]] from this time on".<ref>The Ottoman Centuries Lord Kinross</ref> Mehmed II's first grand vizier was [[Zaganos Pasha]], who was of ''devşirme'' background as opposed to an aristocrat,<ref name="Meḥemmed Ii">{{EI2|last1=İnalcık|first1=Halil|title=Meḥemmed II|volume=6|url=http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/mehemmed-ii-SIM_5111}}</ref> and Zaganos Pasha's successor, [[Mahmud Pasha Angelović]], was also of ''devşirme'' background. It is reported by Madeline Zilfi<ref>For more on this topic: Madeline C. Zilfi, ''Politics of Piety: The Ottoman Ulema in the Postclassical Age (1600–1800)''</ref> that European visitors of the time commented "In making appointments, Sultan pays no regard to any pretensions on the score of wealth or rank. It is by merits that man rise.. Among the Turks, honours, high posts and Judgeships are rewards of great ability and good service."

Safavid Persian society was also a meritocracy where officials were appointed on the basis of worth and merit, and not on the basis of birth. It was certainly not an [[oligarchy]], nor was it an [[aristocracy]]. Sons of nobles were considered for the succession of their fathers as a mark of respect, but they had to prove themselves worthy of the position. This system avoided an entrenched aristocracy or a caste society.<ref>[[Roger Savory]], ''Iran under the Safavids'', p. 183.</ref> There are numerous recorded accounts of laymen that rose to high official posts as a result of their merits.<ref>Sir E. Denison Ross, Sir Anthony Sherley and his Persian Adventure, pp. 219–20.</ref> And since the Safavid society was meritocratic, government offices constantly felt the pressure of being under surveillance and had to make sure they governed in the best interest of their leader, and not merely their own.

===17th century===
The concept of meritocracy spread from China to British India during the seventeenth century.<ref name="APH"/>

The first European power to implement a successful meritocratic civil service was the [[British Empire]], in their administration of India: "company managers hired and promoted employees based on competitive examinations in order to prevent corruption and favoritism".<ref name="APH"/> British colonial administrators advocated the spread of the system to the rest of the [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]], the most "persistent" of which was Thomas Taylor Meadows, Britain's consul in [[Guangzhou]], [[China]]. Meadows successfully argued in his ''[[Desultory Notes on the Government and People of China]]'', published in 1847, that "the long duration of the Chinese empire is solely and altogether owing to the good government which consists in the advancement of men of talent and merit only", and that the British must reform their civil service by making the institution meritocratic.<ref>{{cite web|last=Bodde|first=Derke|title=China: A Teaching Workbook|url=http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/song/readings/inventions_ideas.htm|publisher=Columbia University|access-date=5 August 2012|archive-date=4 January 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120104040501/http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/song/readings/inventions_ideas.htm|url-status=live}}</ref> This practice later was adopted in the late nineteenth century by the British mainland, inspired by the "Chinese mandarin system".<ref name="MB">Huddleston, Mark W. Boyer, William W. ''The higher civil service in the United States: quest for reform''. (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1996), 9-10.</ref>

===18th century===
The [[Ashanti Empire|Ashanti]] King [[Osei Kwadwo]], who ruled from c. 1764 to 1777, began the meritocratic system of appointing central officials according to their ability, rather than their birth.<ref>[[Kevin Shillington]], 1995 (1989), ''History of Africa'', New York: St. Martin's Press. p. 195.</ref>

===19th century===
In 1813, [[Founding Fathers of the United States|U.S. Founding Father]] and President [[Thomas Jefferson]] declared that there exists a "[[natural aristocracy]] of men"  whose right to rule comes from their talent and virtue (merit), rather than their wealth or inherited status. He believed a successful republic must establish educational institutions that identify these natural aristocrats and train them to rule.<ref>{{cite magazine |title=Jefferson, Adams, and the SAT's New Adversity Factor |url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/jefferson-adams-and-the-sats-new-adversity-factor |magazine=The New Yorker |date=23 May 2019 |access-date=13 April 2023 |archive-date=15 April 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230415015217/https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/jefferson-adams-and-the-sats-new-adversity-factor |url-status=live }}</ref>

The federal bureaucracy in the United States used the [[spoils system]] from 1828 until the assassination of United States President [[James A. Garfield]] by a disappointed office seeker in 1881 proved its dangers. Two years later in 1883, the system of appointments to the United States Federal Bureaucracy was revamped by the [[Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act]], partially based on the British meritocratic civil service that had been established years earlier. The act stipulated that government jobs should be awarded on the basis of merit, through competitive exams, rather than ties to politicians or political affiliation. It also made it illegal to fire or demote government employees for political reasons.<ref name=penl>{{cite web |url=http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3115 |title=Civil Service Reform |work=Digital History |publisher=[[University of Houston]] |access-date=2016-02-19 |archive-date=12 March 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160312083614/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3115 |url-status=live }}</ref>

To enforce the merit system and the judicial system, the law also created the [[United States Civil Service Commission]].<ref name="penl" /> In the modern American meritocracy, the president may hand out only a certain number of jobs, which must be approved by the [[United States Senate]].

Australia began establishing public universities in the 1850s with the goal of promoting meritocracy by providing advanced training and credentials. The educational system was set up to service urban males of middle-class background, but of diverse social and religious origins. It was increasingly extended to all graduates of the public school system, those of rural and regional background, and then to women and finally to ethnic minorities.<ref>Julia Horne, and Geoffrey Sherington, "Extending the educational franchise: the social contract of Australia's public universities, 1850-1890",  ''Paedagogica Historica'' (2010) 46#1 pp 207-227</ref> Both the middle classes and the working classes have promoted the ideal of meritocracy within a strong commitment to "mate-ship" and political equality.<ref>{{cite book|author=Miriam Henry|title=Understanding Schooling: An Introductory Sociology of Australian Education|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-_FSMpdmK3oC&pg=PA81|year=1988|publisher=Psychology Press|page=81|isbn=9780203135990}}</ref>

The British philosopher and polymath [[John Stuart Mill]] advocated meritocracy in his book ''[[Considerations on Representative Government]]''. [[Plural voting|His model]] was to give more votes to the more [[educated]] voter. His views are explained in [[David Estlund|Estlund]] (2003:57–58):

<blockquote><poem>Mill's proposal of plural voting has two motives. One is to prevent one group or class of people from being able to control the political process even without having to give reasons in order to gain sufficient support. He calls this the problem of class legislation. Since the most numerous class is also at a lower level of education and social rank, this could be partly remedied by giving those at the higher ranks plural votes. A second, and equally prominent motive for plural voting is to avoid giving equal influence to each person without regard to their merit, intelligence, etc. He thinks that it is fundamentally important that political institutions embody, in their spirit, the recognition that some opinions are worth more than others. He does not say that this is a route to producing better political decisions, but it is hard to understand his argument, based on this second motive, in any other way.

So, if Aristotle is right that the deliberation is best if participants are numerous (and assuming for simplicity that the voters are the deliberators) then this is a reason for giving all or many citizens a vote, but this does not yet show that the wiser subset should not have, say, two or three; in that way something would be given both to the value of the diverse perspectives, and to the value of the greater wisdom of the few. This combination of the Platonic and Aristotelian points is part of what I think is so formidable about Mill's proposal of plural voting. It is also an advantage of his view that he proposes to privilege not the wise, but the educated. Even if we agreed that the wise should rule, there is a serious problem about how to identify them. This becomes especially important if a successful political justification must be generally acceptable to the ruled. In that case, privileging the wise would require not only their being so wise as to be better rulers, but also, and more demandingly, that their wisdom be something that can be agreed to by all reasonable citizens. I turn to this conception of justification below.

Mill's position has great plausibility: good education promotes the ability of citizens to rule more wisely. So, how can we deny that the educated subset would rule more wisely than others? But then why shouldn't they have more votes?</poem></blockquote>

Estlund goes on to criticize Mill's education-based meritocracy on various grounds.

===20th century to today===
[[Singapore]] describes meritocracy as one of its official guiding principles for domestic public policy formulation, placing emphasis on academic credentials as objective measures of merit.<ref>[http://app.mfa.gov.sg/data/paris/statements/REMARKS_FOR_MEDEF_28_Aug_08.html Speech by Singapore Ambassador to France], 28 August 2008. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120302193448/http://app.mfa.gov.sg/data/paris/statements/REMARKS_FOR_MEDEF_28_Aug_08.html|date=2 March 2012}}</ref>

There is criticism that, under this system, Singaporean society is being increasingly stratified and that an elite class is being created from a narrow segment of the population.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.littlespeck.com/content/politics/CTrendsPolitics-061028.htm|title=Singapore's elites|author=Ngiam Tong Dow|date=28 October 2006|publisher=Little Speck|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061101220026/http://www.littlespeck.com/content/politics/CTrendsPolitics-061028.htm|archive-date=1 November 2006|url-status=usurped}}</ref> Singapore has a growing level of tutoring for children,<ref name=":0">{{Cite news|url=http://www.wyomingfreelibrary.org/growing-trend-of-uplifting-education-business-in-singapore/|title=Growing trend of uplifting education business in Singapore|newspaper=Free Library and Tuition|access-date=2016-10-25|archive-date=25 April 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170425115339/http://www.wyomingfreelibrary.org/growing-trend-of-uplifting-education-business-in-singapore/|url-status=dead}}</ref> and top tutors are often paid better than school teachers.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://news.asiaone.com/news/education/1-billion-spent-tuition-one-year|title=$1 billion spent on tuition in one year|newspaper=AsiaOne|access-date=2016-10-25|archive-date=2 January 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170102190109/http://news.asiaone.com/news/education/1-billion-spent-tuition-one-year|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.epigami.sg/blog/2015-private-tuition-rates-singapore/|title=2015 Private Tuition Rates in Singapore {{!}} Epigami Blog|date=2015-01-21|newspaper=Epigami Blog|access-date=2016-10-25|language=en-US|archive-date=14 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161214193326/http://www.epigami.sg/blog/2015-private-tuition-rates-singapore/|url-status=dead}}</ref> Defenders of this system recall the ancient Chinese proverb "Wealth never survives past three [[Family name|generations]]" ({{zh|c=富不过三代}}), suggesting that the [[nepotism]] or [[cronyism]] of elitists eventually will be, and often are, limited by those lower down the hierarchy.

Singaporean academics are continuously re-examining the application of meritocracy as an ideological tool and how it's stretched to encompass the ruling party's objectives. Professor Kenneth Paul Tan at the [[Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy]] asserts that "meritocracy, in trying to 'isolate' merit by treating people with fundamentally unequal backgrounds as superficially the same, can be a practice that ignores and even conceals the real advantages and disadvantages that are unevenly distributed to different segments of an inherently unequal society, a practice that in fact perpetuates this fundamental inequality. In this way, those who are picked by meritocracy as having merit may already have enjoyed unfair advantages from the very beginning, ignored according to the principle of nondiscrimination".<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Tan|first1=Kenneth Paul|date=January 2008|title=Meritocracy and Elitism in a Global City: Ideological Shifts in Singapore|journal=International Political Science Review|volume=29|issue=7–27|pages=7–27|doi=10.1177/0192512107083445|s2cid=143983490}}</ref>

How meritocracy in the Singaporean context relates to the application of [[pragmatism]] as an ideological device, which combines strict adherence to market principles ''without'' any aversion to social engineering and little propensity for classical social [[welfarism]],<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/04/16/how-singapore-is-fixing-its-meritocracy/|title=Opinion {{!}} How Singapore is fixing its meritocracy|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=2017-09-14|archive-date=14 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170914173017/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/04/16/how-singapore-is-fixing-its-meritocracy/|url-status=live}}</ref> is further illustrated by Kenneth Paul Tan in subsequent articles:

<blockquote>There is a strong ideological quality in Singapore's pragmatism, and a strongly pragmatic quality in ideological negotiations within the dynamics of hegemony. In this complex relationship, the combination of ideological and pragmatic maneuvering over the decades has resulted in the historical dominance of government by the [[People's Action Party|PAP]] in partnership with global capital whose interests have been advanced without much reservation.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Tan|first1=Kenneth Paul|date=9 December 2011|title=The Ideology of Pragmatism: Neo-liberal Globalisation and Political Authoritarianism in Singapore|journal=Journal of Contemporary Asia|volume=42|issue=1|pages=67–92|doi=10.1080/00472336.2012.634644|s2cid=56236985}}</ref></blockquote>Within the [[Ecuador]]ian Ministry of Labor, the Ecuadorian Meritocracy Institute<ref>{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20130305014509/http://www.meritocracia.gob.ec/ Web page of "Instituto Nacional de Meritocracia de Ecuador"]}}, 12 March 2013.</ref> was created under the technical advice of the [[Singapore]]an government.

With similar objections, [[John Rawls]] rejects the ideal of meritocracy as well.<ref>{{Cite book|title=[[A Theory of Justice]]|last=Rawls|first=John|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=1999|pages=91–92}}</ref>