The Meaning of Meritocracy

[The Bored Chairman]

NOT IN STELLARIS. In Stellaris there is NO WAY to get rid of a dictator. If you run Dictatorship then you are stuck with your ruler until he dies or until you change government form. In Stellaris you can not get rid of a monarch.

In Stellaris if you click on "Imperial" government form then you have no ability to choose a ruler. None. You can run a oligarchy and call it a monarchy if you wish, but mechanically it's an oligarchy.

I mean, you can always declare war on a Fallen Empire and immediately surrender if you get a dictator you don't want.

Really channel that Brutus energy.

 

[Nevars]

When I described the game-mechanic consequences, I forgot to mention that I make the suggestion because of their tooltips:

Egalitarians ban Capacity Boosters, and Fanatic Egalitarians ban both.
Those two policy options are essentially about the creation of a genetic aristocracy.

I means that still doesn't have anything that meritocracy would disagree with tho?

Meritocracy is about putting the most qualified people to the job they qualified combining them with enhancing leader would actually in line with what meritocracy embrace anyway cuz now they can created qualified people more efficiently instead of relying on genetic rng, education etc which means by enhancing leader they could eliminate one random factor from the equation thus leading to overall better result.

Because a thing can't be what it isn't. What kind of mind f argument is this. If it's for life then it is for life. If you can be removed without dying then it's not for life.


What matters is who is deciding that the monarch is being abdicated, is the monarch choosing to retire and letting their heir take over, or are they being removed by the court against their will?


Ain't nothing magical about 4 years.


Hard disagree. It's more important that the game be internally consistent than for it to be consistent with some random historical empire. And not only that but you have to be very careful to separate out the mechanics of a real world government and their own propaganda. A government may call itself a democracy, but it could very easily not be. There are many examples of this today. There have also been examples of dictatorships that called themselves monarchies.
What they call themselves and what they are from a purely mechanical point of view can be very different and you keep trying to shoehorn in "what they call themselves" into the "how they mechanically function". It's very annoying.

I mean imagine trying to argue that North Korea is a true democracy because it calls itself one and then use that as an example of why you should be allowed to have authoritarian only civics in a democracy in Stellaris. It's banal.


And?


I am saying that imperial is monarchy. I have no idea where this is coming from but wherever it is, it's not me.


Already told you that 4 isn't a magic number of democracy.


Yes.

So if term length isn't magic like you now claimed then congratulation for invalidate your own past claimed yourself thus meaning there is nothing blocking imperial/dictatorial from being meritocratic or at least nothing in term of term length like you claimed.

When did I bring up an idea that the name of irl country is what define their government form?

And when did I claim NK is democracy? The only country I brought up about democracy is USA and only to demonstrate that if I using your logic then USA wouldn't be democracy.

Nothing.

You can't even use my own logic to apply (in case of trying to demonstrate that my logic is faulty, like I did with yours) to produce the claims about all these because there is nothing relate to these at all (and largely because it came from your logic in that first place so if you success in invalidate them then I will cheer you on cuz that is my goal in the first place, to show you that your logic is false).

So all of that is irrevalent and seem like an attempted to strawman at worse or shifting the goal post (by derailing) at best.

 

[Derp Throat]

While we're on the subject, what about making meritocracy exclusive with democratic governments?

The two concepts are completely incompatible. Ruling because of merit vs ruling because of a popularity contest. They're practically opposites.

 

[MatthewP]

While we're on the subject, what about making meritocracy exclusive with democratic governments?

The two concepts are completely incompatible. Ruling because of merit vs ruling because of a popularity contest. They're practically opposites.

While you’re not wrong, I think really the core issue is that any really strict idea of meritocracy is just impossible if you’re trying to do it with humans. Or at least no one has come up with a workable system. So many folks in this thread are assuming this civic would only apply to aliens with a different makeup or possibly some future human society organized with a vastly different setup than anything in history. Given that type of premise, democracy isn’t impossibly incompatible (though it’s not the most obvious government choice).

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

I means that still doesn't have anything that meritocracy would disagree with tho?

Meritocracy is about putting the most qualified people to the job they qualified combining them with enhancing leader would actually in line with what meritocracy embrace anyway cuz now they can created qualified people more efficiently instead of relying on genetic rng, education etc which means by enhancing leader they could eliminate one random factor from the equation thus leading to overall better result.

The issue that the job is assigned to these people even before they are born; competition is essentially being replaced with an elite's predetermined (birth)right to a position, with leaders being born better. Just like how Aristocracy is about positions being determined by factors before your birth, about some people being born (and raised) better. If qualifications alone were enough to make something a meritocracy, an aristocracy would effectively also be a meritocracy, as the most qualified leaders will all come from the (privileged) noble families. Then there would be no point in having both Aristocracy and Meritocracy in the game (and Technocracy would also be an endangered species of a civic).

To distinguish Aristocracy from Meritocracy, while they both claim to produce better leaders, they have to represent substantially different positions. Aristocracy then stands for the ideas of privileged birthrights, better blood, better (family) traditions and better preparation as a means of achieving better leaders, while Meritocracy instead stands for the ideas of no predetermined privileges, favoring competition in selection, and for the opportunity of the lowest to become the highest through talent and hard work as the means to achieve the same. Producing babies intended for leadership positions is against everything that the latter stands for.

The dystopian sci-fi drama Gattaca (1997) deals quite explicitly with the issue of meritocracy versus genetic aristocracy (and it is quite ok).

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

While we're on the subject, what about making meritocracy exclusive with democratic governments?

The two concepts are completely incompatible. Ruling because of merit vs ruling because of a popularity contest. They're practically opposites.

I prefer thinking that any Stellaris state with the Meritocracy civic should be expected to uphold meritocratic ideals relatively well (even if nobody is completely perfect).
A meritocratic democracy is not a typical democracy.
A meritocratic oligarchy is not a typical oligarchy.
A meritocratic dictatorship is not a typical dictatorship.
A meritocratic monarchy is not a typical monarchy.
While their constitutional models differ, they would all be expected to work according to meritocratic principles within their respective constitutional frameworks.

P.S. If anyone wants a modern example of an elective monarchy, it just occurred to me that the Vatican is an elective monarchy (as was the Papal States before it).

 

[Mastikator]

I prefer thinking that any Stellaris state with the Meritocracy civic should be expected to uphold meritocratic ideals relatively well (even if nobody is completely perfect).
A meritocratic democracy is not a typical democracy.
A meritocratic oligarchy is not a typical oligarchy.
A meritocratic dictatorship is not a typical dictatorship.
A meritocratic monarchy is not a typical monarchy.
While their constitutional models differ, they would all be expected to work according to meritocratic principles within their respective constitutional frameworks.

P.S. If anyone wants a modern example of an elective monarchy, it just occurred to me that the Vatican is an elective monarchy (as was the Papal States before it).

I'd like to see emergency elections in dictatorships before agreeing that a dictatorship is capable. I know the "suicide by fallen empire" meme is funny but it's not a real answer.
By the very least the court should be able to enforce suicide on the dictator without outside help.
Likewise for imperial authority.

Either that or alter the text of "Meritocracy" so that it is clear that it does not apply to the ruler.

To me it is important that the game mechanics are not in conflict with the in game text.

 

[Mastikator]

@Tannhäuser Cake Emergency Election costs 250 influence, I can see the same kind of price for Dictator and Imperial authority. What's more is that then you have to spend 200 to choose a better ruler unless you want to leave it for chance.

I think that's fair, it's the same price as reforming your government.

Impeachment for democracies would also be cool (also 250 influence IMO) but it's less important since terms only last 10 years. I'd also like to see the introduction of term limits in Democracies as options for players that want it (as a policy choice).

With more levers to pull and buttons to push to control and define your government you open up more possibilities and combinations of civics.

 

[Nevars]

The issue that the job is assigned to these people even before they are born; competition is essentially being replaced with an elite's predetermined (birth)right to a position, with leaders being born better. Just like how Aristocracy is about positions being determined by factors before your birth, about some people being born (and raised) better. If qualifications alone were enough to make something a meritocracy, an aristocracy would effectively also be a meritocracy, as the most qualified leaders will all come from the (privileged) noble families. Then there would be no point in having both Aristocracy and Meritocracy in the game (and Technocracy would also be an endangered species of a civic).

To distinguish Aristocracy from Meritocracy, while they both claim to produce better leaders, they have to represent substantially different positions. Aristocracy then stands for the ideas of privileged birthrights, better blood, better (family) traditions and better preparation as a means of achieving better leaders, while Meritocracy instead stands for the ideas of no predetermined privileges, favoring competition in selection, and for the opportunity of the lowest to become the highest through talent and hard work as the means to achieve the same. Producing babies intended for leadership positions is against everything that the latter stands for.

The dystopian sci-fi drama Gattaca (1997) deals quite explicitly with the issue of meritocracy versus genetic aristocracy (and it is quite ok).

But there is still competition, it is simply reduce to against enhance leader candidates (which gauranteed to be superior to unenhance massess) unless you want to argue that there will be literally only one enhance leader, that is the only way for competition to be erased with enhancing leader policy.

Aristocracy is not incompatible with meritocracy anyway so I don't see any problem with it even if enhancing policy will lead to aristocracy.

Also meritocracy will also leading to aristocracy too so that is why I said they aren't inherently incompatible.

I would even argue that meritocracy is inherently compatible with aristocracy and incompatible with democracy because by it core meritocracy believe that human is not equal (and this included equal opportunity too), there exist someone superior for this position thus they deserve to get that position instead of someone who are inferior because meritocracy only care for result of best people for the jobs.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

"Democracy" only really means that authority rests with the people, the broad public, while the government only serves and has to gain favour with the public to keep serving.

(Digression: Democracy in Stellaris does not even necessarily mean that everyone has an equal vote - a democratic state without the Egalitarian ethic would be a non-egalitarian democracy that very well could have differentiated voting rights within "the people". Democracy + Merchant Guilds + not Egalitarian could mean that personal wealth influences the size of your vote, as well as your ability to run for office. Since Stellaris egalitarians tend to form democracies, however, democracies also tend to be Egalitarian and therefore should trend toward having relatively equal voting rights.)

I would further say that egalitarianism is not a belief that people are equal in ability, as that is patently at odds with observable reality and egalitarians are not blind, but rather that people should be equal in dignity and rights. Egalitarian societies will still recognise that it is for the best of all that talents are not wasted, but rather used where they do the greatest good.

 

[Tamwin5]

Now, a somewhat lengthy attempt to bring some part of the discussion back to the game mechanics surrounding the Meritocracy civic.

While it can be argued whether a system can be considered a true/perfect meritocracy if conditions and opportunities are unevenly distributed, I think it can also be argued that there can be many grades and shades of meritocracy. Some systems can be more meritocratic than others, and meritocracy can be unevenly implemented in a state - it can be perfectly applied to some sectors while it is ignored in others. Inconsistent, yes; hypocritical, yes; realistic, yes.

Meritocracy can appear from a deep cultural conviction that enforces social norms, it can come from political convictions that translate into laws designed to change society, it can come from a society being so fiercely competitive that organisations have no choice but to be meritocratic or perish, and it can come from an autocrat seeking to ensure that important jobs in society and civil service are given to those best able to perform them, for the good of the state (not necessarily for the sake of fairness).

In the game, these variations are reflected by considering the context in which a civic is picked; what the context means for the civic and what the civic means for the context. For instance, Beacon of Liberty would have completely different connotations in Fanatic Pacifist and Fanatic Militarist empires, one potentially being a safe haven and shining city on a hill for freedom-thirsting refugees and the other being the torch of freedom in a galactic crusade for liberty against authoritarian horrors. Similarly, the meaning of meritocracy would be quite different in a stratified authoritarian meritocracy versus a materialist-egalitarian technocratic meritocracy. Similarly, the concept of a monarchy with the Meritocracy civic would reflect something completely different from a monarchy with the Aristocratic Elite civic.

The tooltip for Meritocracy currently says:

While it could be argued that "ruler" (head of state) neither is a profession, nor exists "in" a society but rather above it, we could also just go with exactly what the tooltip says and apply it to the concept of monarchy. After all, Stellaris is very sparse with details regarding the finer details of selections, elections and successions, leaving us to fill in the blanks with the best explanations that come to mind in our own headcanon. The Imperial government authority type is even generously using the vague term "designated successor".

Nothing is said about how that successor gets designated. Then, going further, we also have the game's definition of Enlightened Monarchy.

"Hereditary" does not necessitate biological relationship, possibly not even familial relationship, it only means that the position is one that gets inherited. The process of designating a successor, an heir, would reasonably be galaxies apart when comparing the hypothetical Meritocratic and Aristocratic Elite monarchies. Where an aristocratic model of succession would be based on birthright, possibly including genital and primogeniturial qualifications, a meritocratic succession would be based on ability. It could be a process that involves the careful selection among tens, hundreds, thousands or even millions of strong candidates, culminating with becoming the designated successor (possibly also adoption into the royal family). Then even the lowest-born could potentially become a future monarch, with enough talent and determination.

Torba'Kari could start out as the child of a miner on Anathor, but through talent and hard work qualify herself for an elite Administrator education, then work her sitting parts off in service of the empire and advance through the imperial administration - until finally being selected for a successor designation evaluation by the Succession Committee, and ultimately being adopted into the royal family as the next Crown Princess.

There are some important reasons why the above could not be emulated via Dictatorial elections between the (supposedly) great leaders of the empire.

1. It is not an election process, it is not anywhere close to being democratic, it is an imperial career that decides the single heir of the current ruler without any political or factional considerations (as reflected by the fact that you do not get any opportunity to influence the agenda of the next ruler, but have to settle for whatever they themselves choose).
2. Political elections are political, not meritocratic, selections. They are battles of popularity between competing coalitions and factions, where the nominee may just be a figurehead, and the actual abilities of the candidates will drown under a sea of hateful and misleading messages and smear campaigns sometimes based entirely on fabricated stories.
   • Stellaris elections are political elections, as they typically involve the faction leaders (in democratic elections it is even made crystal clear that it is about factions and "mandate" promises). The ruler's faction even gets increased ethics attraction. Even if we presume fair play of all parties involved, there are still so many more things that influence political elections than just the ability of the candidates.
3. A process bypassing the (supposedly) great scientific, gubernatorial and military leaders of the state may very well be more meritocratic than an election among them.
   • Such elections would be based on many more things than just ruler ability, as mentioned above.
   • The (supposedly) great leaders have proven ability and merits in their respective fields, but are yet completely untried as rulers of a state (while sector governors come a bit closer, it is still a very different role from imperial management). They are more qualified for the positions they already occupy, and losing them from their field of expertise would be a loss to the empire.
   • Less famous candidates may show much more promise for the role, but lack the competitive benefits that an already elevated position confers. Especially if we consider the strong possibility that such candidates have been properly educated and trained for imperial management, unlike the scientific, gubernatorial and military leaders who rather have their expertise and experience within their respective roles.

What I would suggest is that Meritocracy could be enabled for autocratic governments and added as an alternative to Philosopher King for appropriate government types, namely Enlightened Monarchy (imperial authority; meritocratically designated heir) and Elective Monarchy (dictatorial authority; election among meritocratically recruited leaders).

Additionally, as has been suggested before, Meritocracy should be mutually incompatible with Aristocratic Elite.
And Meritocracy should block leader enhancement policies, as they essentially aim to create a genetic aristocracy. This policy restriction makes the authoritarian faction sad, meaning less faction approval, meaning less authoritarian pop happiness, meaning more ethics divergence away from authoritarian governing ethics, possibly contributing to a more egalitarian type of government in the future.
Of course, an abdication / impeachment / recall election feature would also be nice to get, in addition to the current oligarchic emergency elections. (For imperial governments, that might even help the royal name counter tick up slightly more noticeably.)


(Post scriptum, it also seems slightly odd to me that we currently can have technocratic monarchies but not meritocratic ones, considering that both technocracy and meritocracy focus on qualifications as the basis for assigning positions. Allowing Meritocracy for autocracies, as per above, would resolve this discrepancy.)

(Post post scriptum, regarding the argument that in a meritocracy a ruler can be removed for incompetence:
1. While it can be argued that elections could be interpreted as removing someone for incompetence, the fact is that this is never really mentioned anywhere in the game, and political elections are about so much more than just the leaders' qualifications, such as politics and ideologies. The ability to win elections is not the same as the ability to rule well; all too often, good rulers get removed and bad rulers get elected, because of this mismatch.
2. Stellaris' democratic elections are explicitly about ideologies/factions, with candidates being labelled by faction and having "mandate" promises, and the elected ruler's faction getting increased ethics attraction.
3. Removal for various non-corrupt reasons is already sort-of half-way abstracted into leader lifespan and death. Realistically, most persons retire or get retired once they can no longer perform their duties, long before they die. In reality, it is very rare that someone dies of old age at their job. The lifespan in Stellaris should realistically reflect that, and only represent how long a character can still perform their job. "Death" can then mean any number of things where someone no longer remains available. In fact, using the console command kill_leader gives you a message saying "Torba'Kari was retired with full pension, spending the remaining years sipping cocktails on the pristine beaches of Risa". Of course, this could just be the Paradox way of saying that the dog got sent to a country farm.
4. I absolutely agree that there should be an abdication / impeachment feature.)

To start off with, technocratic monarchies. Being a scientist is a profession, you don't actually have to be good at it. Similarly to how many irl monarchies swear to uphold the church and be a just ruler under the eyes of God, a technocratic monarchy might swear to uphold the various academia, and be be a just ruler under the eyes of SCIENCE! Like how in Plato's Republic the ruler was expected to be a warrior because combat was held as key, in a technocratic monarchy they are expected to be a scientist (or at the least, champion the cause of science) because it is held as key. A technocratic monarchy is completely different from a meritocratic one.

It feels like most of your post is dedicated to show that an autocracy can be more meritocratic than a democracy. Ultimately, I see this is irrelevant. It's not about which form of government is the most meritocratic, it's about which forms can support the high bar required to qualify as a true Meritocracy. So any society which fails be meritocratic at all levels doesn't qualify for the civic. Since low level meritocracy isn't really in doubt, the question then becomes "can you have autocratic meritocracy?" A lot of the arguments against autocratic meritocracies come from the argument "what if they are bad at their job", but here are different ones: What if someone better comes along? Or what if the job changes?

The best person to rule a nation at peace is vastly different from the best person to rule a nation at war. If a new orphan off the streets of Anathor is discovered with better potential, but your ruler is 40, there's nothing to do. There is no flexibility in an autocratic government. Ensuring the best person possible is chosen as supreme leader is Philosopher King, not Meritocracy. A Meritocracy should always seek to have the best person in charge no matter the time or responsibilities, and the assumption of uninterrupted rule (no matter any mechanic to retire or abdicate) runs counter to that. There is nothing stopping someone from ruling to the end of their life in an oligarchy or democracy (indeed, I'd argue that if the ability to add term limits was added meritocracy should prevent them), they are just constantly examined.

 

[MatthewP]

A lot of the arguments against autocratic meritocracies come from the argument "what if they are bad at their job", but here are different ones: What if someone better comes along? Or what if the job changes?

Of course you can have your own idea of what meritocracy is (everyone in this thread does, including me). But it's worth pointing out that the in-game description says nothing about constant evaluation and in fact explicitly calls out advancement as the thing that is restricted. It's hard to read this and think it's contradicted by lifetime terms, so long as the selection process for the jobs is completely merit-based.

An individual's social station or personal connections should have no bearing on their profession. The sole basis for advancement in this society is demonstrated ability and talent.

 

[Lazy Name]

Of course you can have your own idea of what meritocracy is (everyone in this thread does, including me). But it's worth pointing out that the in-game description says nothing about constant evaluation and in fact explicitly calls out advancement as the thing that is restricted. It's hard to read this and think it's contradicted by lifetime terms, so long as the selection process for the jobs is completely merit-based.

An individual's social station or personal connections should have no bearing on their profession. The sole basis for advancement in this society is demonstrated ability and talent.

But for someone to "advance" to certain positions, another person might need to step down. Thus, you'd need to evaluate whether the current job holder or the new candidate would be a better fit. In a society completely focused on merit above all, would it not be absurd to limit the advancement of a talented and skilled candidate just because the current ruler happens to not be dead yet?

 

[MatthewP]

But for someone to "advance" to certain positions, another person might need to step down. Thus, you'd need to evaluate whether the current job holder or the new candidate would be a better fit. In a society completely focused on merit above all, would it not be absurd to limit the advancement of a talented and skilled candidate just because the current ruler happens to not be dead yet?

I would say no, it's not absurd. It seems like a merit-based society can still care about things like stability and the value of one person spending time at a job and gaining expertise versus constantly cycling in candidates. It might decide that a leader who has a lifetime appointment can devote themselves to doing their best job while one who constantly has to fend off challengers will devote their time to appearing to do their best job.

Or, of course, it might not. It could decide that everyone should be constantly evaluated and/or in competition, and that the benefits of forcing people to constantly prove themselves outweigh the downsides. I think this is a perfectly valid approach to meritocracy. I just don't think it's the only possible one, or necessarily the "best" one (even for humans, let alone arbitrary aliens).

Edit: also, even if you think this is necessary for a meritocracy, I don't see how it follows from Stellaris' description. Advancement can be based only on merit even if demotion is limited.

 

[Lazy Name]

I would say no, it's not absurd. It seems like a merit-based society can still care about things like stability and the value of one person spending time at a job and gaining expertise versus constantly cycling in candidates. It might decide that a leader who has a lifetime appointment can devote themselves to doing their best job while one who constantly has to fend off challengers will devote their time to appearing to do their best job.

Or, of course, it might not. It could decide that everyone should be constantly evaluated and/or in competition, and that the benefits of forcing people to constantly prove themselves outweigh the downsides. I think this is a perfectly valid approach to meritocracy. I just don't think it's the only possible one, or necessarily the "best" one (even for humans, let alone arbitrary aliens).

But the experience and stability that come with long term rulers are also merits, which can be evaluated and weighed against other merits. Sure, you can definitely have a meritocratic society that values them more then others and thus will normally allow rulers to rule for life, but why would a meritocratic society choose to never replace a leader even in a scenario where the benefits clearly outweigh the harms? There can be problems with constantly cycling between rulers and encouraging competition, but to literally say "This person must rule for life, even when doing that prevents a better person from taking the job" seems odd from a meritocratic perspective.

Edit: also, even if you think this is necessary for a meritocracy, I don't see how it follows from Stellaris' description. Advancement can be based only on merit even if demotion is limited.

But with lifelong terms for rulers, advancement isn't based only on merit; it's also based on being born at a good time to be at the right age when the current ruler dies. Even a hypothetical objectively perfect individual, one that would make a better leader than the current one in every way, can be prevented from ever becoming ruler just by virtue of being born too close to the time the current one was selected. If limited advancement from being born into the wrong family is clearly unmeritocratic, why wouldn't limited advancement from being born at the wrong time be?

 

[MatthewP]

But the experience and stability that come with long term rulers are also merits, which can be evaluated and weighed against other merits. Sure, you can definitely have a meritocratic society that values them more then others and thus will normally allow rulers to rule for life, but why would a meritocratic society choose to never replace a leader even in a scenario where the benefits clearly outweigh the harms? There can be problems with constantly cycling between rulers and encouraging competition, but to literally say "This person must rule for life, even when doing that prevents a better person from taking the job" seems odd from a meritocratic perspective.

This is a good point; I agree. Honestly every autocratic government should probably have the ability to remove the ruler at a high cost. In a meritocracy this would represent removal for incompetence; in a traditional monarchy abdication, etc.

If limited advancement from being born into the wrong family is clearly unmeritocratic, why wouldn't limited advancement from being born at the wrong time be?

These are quite different things. I think I’ve answered already why a meritocratic society might want some rules on reevaluating people. I wonder I you still have the objection if the extreme of being completely unable to remove incompetents is fixed?

 

[ZeeHero]

Meritocracy should definitely be avaliable for non imperial government forms. Dictatorship can be meritocratic, if the most qualified person becomes the new dictator each time. Oligarchy as well, the ruling elites would be replaced when more qualified individuals emerge. Meritocracy need not be utopian.

The Turian Hierarchy in mass effect is a quasi Authoritarian meritocracy where those of higher status hold responsibility for the actions of those they deemed worthy to promote, and each individual is expected to work for the good of the whole, while being judged based on their performance at the job.

 

[Lazy Name]

These are quite different things. I think I’ve answered already why a meritocratic society might want some rules on reevaluating people.

Perhaps I was unclear? I meant that if there are lifelong terms, then that creates a possibility of scenarios where, for example, someone born 30 years before ruler selection can spend 70 long years as leader before they die, while someone with the misfortune of being born 10 years before selection could not be considered and will be 80 years old for the next one. Even if the second person was far more talented and skilled then the first, and thus from a meritocratic perspective should deserve to advance further, their advancement was limited due to being born at the wrong time. I personally think a true meritocracy would consider it unacceptable to have something like that as a possibility, especially considering how easily avoidable it is. You wouldn't need too many reevaluations, and even just having one every decade or so would eliminate such extreme scenarios.

I wonder I you still have the objection if the extreme of being completely unable to remove incompetents is fixed?

That does remove the most pressing problem. It could however be argued that a meritocracy isn't willing to settle for merely competent; They would want the most qualified person for the job, not the first not-incompetent person to get there. While it's relatively easy to recognize when a ruler is being incompetent, it's probably impossible to determine whether another person would be more competent without evaluating the ruler.

 

[MatthewP]

Perhaps I was unclear? I meant that if there are lifelong terms, then that creates a possibility of scenarios where, for example, someone born 30 years before ruler selection can spend 70 long years as leader before they die, while someone with the misfortune of being born 10 years before selection could not be considered and will be 80 years old for the next one. Even if the second person was far more talented and skilled then the first, and thus from a meritocratic perspective should deserve to advance further, their advancement was limited due to being born at the wrong time. I personally think a true meritocracy would consider it unacceptable to have something like that as a possibility, especially considering how easily avoidable it is. You wouldn't need too many reevaluations, and even just having one every decade or so would eliminate such extreme scenarios.

You were clear. And I would think, in the (to me very improbable) event that a new person comes along who is clearly so much more capable than the experienced leader that it trumps all considerations about stability, experience, the value of a precedent that leaders do not have to self-promote, and so on, that might fit under the exceptional removal category.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

Regarding the issue of lifespan-long terms, an attempt to resolve the issue with headcanon:

I think the issue can be viewed through the egalitarian-authoritarian prism. In an egalitarian meritocracy, fairness would be a major concern and indeed an important component of what their meritocracy is about. For them, lifespan-long terms that exclude candidates would be against what they stand for.

On the other hand, an authoritarian meritocracy would be less concerned about fairness - the important thing is what is good for the state; that ruler (s)elections are done in such a way that no candidate is disregarded due to societal privileges or irrational prejudice. That one or two generations of potential candidates will be overlooked due to bad luck may be unfortunate, but since those generations' best candidates are not expected to be significantly better than any other generation, it is not really a big loss for the state. It is a price worth paying for the benefits of long rule, or alternatively: being born in a "middle generation" would be a negative merit when considering the objective interests of the system. The authoritarian meritocratic concern would, after all, primarily be about what serves the system best.

(If they are superstitious, they may even consider the "middle generations" to be inherently more unlucky than other generations, and that could be sufficient reason to not allow those generations to participate in the selection process. A potential ruler with bad luck could be seen as very, very bad thing in a Fanatic Spiritualist meritocracy.)

It is worth noting here that this difference between Egalitarian and Authoritarian meritocracy already would be reflected in the game mechanics, as egalitarians get a much bigger total specialist bonus; Egalitarian meritocracies would always be better than Authoritarian meritocracies at finding and promoting talent, precisely because of their concern for fairness and equality of opportunity, not just equality in opportunity.

---

History also has a yet unmentioned aspect to contribute with on this topic, namely that age itself is often used as a term-regulating factor in lifespan-long elections. This happens frequently in the elective monarchy of the Vatican, where old candidates get elected when the cardinals do not feel comfortable electing any one candidate for a long period. According to a quick websearch, since 1750 the median length of a papal reign has been 13 years; the longest papal reign during that time was just over 31 years (also the second longest ever). A short life expectancy makes it likely that a new election will be held in a not too distant future. Similarly, if there is a "young" candidate that is considered to be really strong, they can get elected with the expectation that they will serve long and well. While I am not a scholar on Vatican elections, I would not be surprised if there is a correlation between the age and perceived merits of a candidate at the time of election.

(Also, while many popes historically have served long past their peak, the last pope Benedict XVI chose to abdicate on February 28th 2013 due to his declining health. However, since the catholic church already has Philosopher King and Exalted Priesthood, the only way it would have a third slot for Meritocracy is if they have discovered the Galactic Administration tech - but how could they possibly have done that?)