Much vitriol has been poured on nepotism. Perhaps rightly so. Nepotistic structures must be demolished and replaced with meritocracy so that talent is not suffocated. However, these sweeping conclusions are lazy arguments. Meritocracy has been sold to us as an easy panacea. The seamy side of meritocracy is more or less hidden from us and we fail to recognise that meritocracy has its own sins. As philosophers seem to have retreated from our quotidian discourses, we are often too quick to arrive at solutions. Let us perhaps halt and muster a philosophical glance at the idea of meritocracy, its evolution and its multifaceted ramifications to arrive at a balanced perspective.
The roots of the modern idea of meritocracy can be traced back to the rise of Napoleon in the early nineteenth century. Napoleon, after coming to power, swore to free the powerful offices and important positions from the stranglehold of the aristocracy. He broke open the closed system of privileged birth and hereditary and made ‘careers open for talent’ (carrièrs ouverte aux talents). That was the beginning of modern meritocracy. It was based on the premise that one’s success in society should be commensurate to one’s merits. It was an iconoclastic rejection of nepotism, aristocracy, hereditary and any kind of unmerited privileges.
This system had its appeal. It was democratic and allowed space for the best of the talent. It infused hope into the society that opportunities of upward social mobility shall not be stifled by the accident of one’s birth. Earlier, the hopes and aspirations were limited as the opportunities for social mobility were restricted. Competition was restricted and competitive jealousies and social friction that comes with competition were limited, too.
-30-
Copyright©Madras Courier, All Rights Reserved. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from madrascourier.com and redistribute by email, post to the web, mobile phone or social media.Please send in your feed back and comments to [email protected]
