The Meaning of Meritocracy

[Tamwin5]

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?)

It's possible to choose rulers based on merit without being a meritocracy. Skipping over generations of potential rulers, for whether the reason, I'd argue excludes that empire from being a meritocracy since things other than skill and talent are considered.

The way I would define the Egalitarian vs Authoritarian split on meritocracy is whether being better at your job makes you worth more as a person. For the authoritarians, someone who is highly skilled would be highly placed in society, possibly placed in an exclusive housing district and their "vote"/influence/opinion given more weight. Where as for egalitarians, sure a great chef might be paid more and be more popular, but it's not like they are a better person or get an extra vote.

 

[MatthewP]

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?)

This made me chuckle

 

[GOLANX]

We don't need the Meritocracy Civic to represent a perfect Meritocracy. Warrior Culture doesn't make all of my pops duelist, Citizen Service doesn't require my pops provide service to become citizens and that literally the definition of that civic. A Perfect Meritocracy is impossible, everyone gets sick, everyone has bad days, if that happens on an examination day you lose even if your the best one at your job. What Meritocracy civic should mean is that your people have a generalized belief in self promotion based on merit and bonuses based on that reguardless of ethic, for a Xenophobe the one with the most merit might be the one with the purest bloodline. For a Militarist you killed the most enemies, or maybe you killed the most friends. For a Materialist it's your GPA and how good your Thesis is. Merit can mean different things to different people.

The Chinese Emperor was Selected by heaven and given its mandate to be Ruler of the Middle Kingdom. His armies fought on the battlefield of honor against the other clans and defeated them through Superior Leadership. The Emperor in his Divine wisdom follows the teachings on Kong Fuzi which says they must have an annual examination to find those most qualified to become Bureocrats. Confusionism ranks the honor and merit of all the different jobs a man can have so those with merit are rewarded with their ranking in the jobs they perform.

Qin Shi Huangdi may not have been a perfect Meritocrat but I don't think that should prevent me from representing him as the ruler of a Meritocracy that does its best and believes in providing positions of Prominince based on Merit even if The Qin Dynasty Emperor will retain his title until his death. What difference does it make to anyone that I get the opportunity to play the game that way.

The Rise of the Meritocracy - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Turns out Meritocracy was coined in a Dystopian Book describing a future that is very non egalitarian.

 

[Tamwin5]

We don't need the Meritocracy Civic to represent a perfect Meritocracy. Warrior Culture doesn't make all of my pops duelist, Citizen Service doesn't require my pops provide service to become citizens and that literally the definition of that civic. A Perfect Meritocracy is impossible, everyone gets sick, everyone has bad days, if that happens on an examination day you lose even if your the best one at your job. What Meritocracy civic should mean is that your people have a generalized belief in self promotion based on merit and bonuses based on that reguardless of ethic, for a Xenophobe the one with the most merit might be the one with the purest bloodline. For a Militarist you killed the most enemies, or maybe you killed the most friends. For a Materialist it's your GPA and how good your Thesis is. Merit can mean different things to different people.

The Chinese Emperor was Selected by heaven and given its mandate to be Ruler of the Middle Kingdom. His armies fought on the battlefield of honor against the other clans and defeated them through Superior Leadership. The Emperor in his Divine wisdom follows the teachings on Kong Fuzi which says they must have an annual examination to find those most qualified to become Bureocrats. Confusionism ranks the honor and merit of all the different jobs a man can have so those with merit are rewarded with their ranking in the jobs they perform.

Qin Shi Huangdi may not have been a perfect Meritocrat but I don't think that should prevent me from representing him as the ruler of a Meritocracy that does its best and believes in providing positions of Prominince based on Merit even if The Qin Dynasty Emperor will retain his title until his death. What difference does it make to anyone that I get the opportunity to play the game that way.

The Rise of the Meritocracy - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Turns out Meritocracy was coined in a Dystopian Book describing a future that is very non egalitarian.

There is a difference between a perfect meritocracy in implementation and a perfect meritocracy design. It's one thing to have situational circumstances cause someone to fail on something they should have succeeded, or blind luck acing a test. It's another to have society itself structured to prevent those things. Normal empires don't have duels, so any significant amount of them is sufficient for a civic. Citizen service actually DOES link citizenship to having military service allowed.

The main problem is that testing for merit DOES NOT make a meritocracy. Any even halfway put together empire makes sure that the candidate can do the job well. A meritocracy is about ONLY testing for merit, with no other considerations. Saying "for a Xenophobe the one with the most merit might be the one with the purest bloodline" is just wrong, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the term. Yes, there are societies which consider a person's bloodline to be important to the job. Maybe it's xenophobe purity, maybe it's a royal bloodline, maybe it's the decedents of the Great Prophet. But none of those societies would be meritocracies.

As to your example, it sounds much more efficient bureaucracy than meritocracy. After all, all of those talented peasants become Bureaucrats. There is no similar process for merchants, alchemists, officers, or indeed the throne itself. But if you really want to pick meritocracy for your Imperial throne, it would only be changing a single line of code. Super easy to do as a mod.

 

[MichaelJanuary]

Of course, historically "a good opportunity to acquire those skills" has been mostly available to "those who simply have the best network". An issue that still foxes us!

Irrelevant. Meritocracy does not require that the pool of candidates must be global, merely that the best candidate in the current pool is advanced.

But I do have a problem with the Aristocratic Elite civic being chosen alongside Meritocracy.

Again, this is not a problem. Aristocratic elite merely implies that the pool of candidates is limited, or that tenure periods once advanced are extended (appointed for life).

This is why dynasties tend to inevitably decay and get replaced by a new dynasty.

Darwinian meritocracy at work. Poor monarchs will get deposed or their empires will fall and be replaced by more competent ones.

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.

Meritocracy (to me) merely implies that the pool of candidates is larger than 1, and that the best of the available pool is advanced regardless of origin. However it could also mean that there is a high standard of qualification applied to filter out candidates, even if not the best possible candidate is advanced.

It does not specify a period of tenure (office term, elections, or whatever).

You could very well have an Auhoritarian Monarchistic system where the best of the available candidates at the time is advanced, but then appointed for life. The meritocratic civic makes no statement about limitations of tenure.

In a democracy it might be that the best available candidates are 'approved' as office holders before an election. This is the de facto way most democracies work, as not everyone is automatically eligible to stand for election. They have to be a 'qualified' candidate, though the qualification standards might be quite low. In an open democracy the qualification criteria might simply be 'is older than 35 and has not been convicted of a crime', or might be 'has a university degree' or might be 'has at least 10 years experience in a senior governance position'. This would still be a meritocracy in that there is some filtration or weeding out of candidates applied. As opposed to a society where even the senile or the deranged can qualify.

Selecting the civic for ANY society, implies that there is a significant emphasis applied to weed out poor candidates. Whether this is done by eugenics, genetic engineering, education, written exams, medical fitness, mental aptitude or experience is irrelevant. One could therefore argue that a fanatic egalitarian society is incompatible with meritocracy, more so than a fanatically autocratic society. Autocracy does not imply hereditary positions, merely that leadership positions wield extraordinary power.

However, certain forms of government might be incompatible with the civic, or at least temper it. For e.g., Hereditary Monarchy or Feudal systems. In a government system where tenure is limited, you get to advance the best (or at least well qualified people) every 5, 10 or 20 years .... whereas in a government system where tenure is unlimited, you are stuck with the 'best qualified' for a long time. Both systems will have advantages and disadvantages.

 

[HFY]

Irrelevant. Meritocracy does not require that the pool of candidates must be global, merely that the best candidate in the current pool is advanced.

Again, this is not a problem. Aristocratic elite merely implies that the pool of candidates is limited, or that tenure periods once advanced are extended (appointed for life).

You're ignoring half the meaning of Aristocratic Elite, which is not that it limits pool size, but that it limits pool membership by birth.

Meritocracy does not need to be global -- limited pool itself would be fine -- but if they have to qualify for pool access by virtue of birth, then they're not a Meritocracy at all, they're just a caste system with pretentious.

The problem is not the size of the pool, it's the metric used to limit access to higher professions.

 

[Darklight731]

The way the Meritocracy civic is used in stellaris currently is pretty good. No Dictatorial or Imperial authority empires should be able to use it if they are any degree of authoritarian. Also, yes, it would make sense for you to need to be at least a little egalitarian in order to use it.

 

[MichaelJanuary]

You're ignoring half the meaning of Aristocratic Elite, which is not that it limits pool size, but that it limits pool membership by birth.

Meritocracy does not need to be global -- limited pool itself would be fine -- but if they have to qualify for pool access by virtue of birth, then they're not a Meritocracy at all, they're just a caste system with pretentious.

The problem is not the size of the pool, it's the metric used to limit access to higher professions.

I dont necessarily agree. Nowhere in aristcratic elite does it say that birth is the criteria for entry to the elite.

How do you know that it is not tentacle length? or having a second head? Or passing a trial by combat? And even if it is birth ... so what. Maybe its a society ruled by a genetically engineered or selected caste of rulers, who form the candidate pool for leadership positions.

The crucial sentence in my position is .... "Selecting the [meritocracy] civic for ANY society, implies that there is a significant emphasis applied to weed out poor candidates. Whether this is done by eugenics, genetic engineering, education, written exams, medical fitness, mental aptitude or experience is irrelevant."

 

[HFY]

I dont necessarily agree. Nowhere in aristcratic elite does it say that birth is the criteria for entry to the elite.

aristocracy
ăr″ĭ-stŏk′rə-sē
noun
1. A hereditary ruling class; nobility.
2. Government by a ruling class.
3. A state or country having this form of government.

It's in the name "Aristocratic Elite", it implies rather strongly that they are aristocrats and your empire has an aristocracy.

The crucial sentence in my position is .... "Selecting the [meritocracy] civic for ANY society, implies that there is a significant emphasis applied to weed out poor candidates. Whether this is done by eugenics, genetic engineering, education, written exams, medical fitness, mental aptitude or experience is irrelevant."

Then you're at odds with the definition provided by the game:

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.

The sole basis for advancement is demonstrated ability and talent -- not tentacle length, not eugenic purity, not education, not mental aptitude (except insofar as this overlaps with demonstrated by ability and talent), and so on.

As a corollary, in a Meritocracy it must be possible for any citizen to demonstrate ability and talent -- there must not be barriers which inhibit such demonstrations for some and give more opportunities to others.

 

[GOLANX]

aristocracy
ăr″ĭ-stŏk′rə-sē
noun
1. A hereditary ruling class; nobility.
2. Government by a ruling class.
3. A state or country having this form of government.

It's in the name "Aristocratic Elite", it implies rather strongly that they are aristocrats and your empire has an aristocracy.

The Problem is With Merit Rather than Aristocracy, Merit is a rather loose and ill defined term that is more often influenced by subjective opinions, it's one of the major flaws to the idea of Meritocracy.

The sole basis for advancement is demonstrated ability and talent -- not tentacle length, not eugenic purity, not education, not mental aptitude (except insofar as this overlaps with demonstrated by ability and talent), and so on.

How do you measure ability and talent? It's not that simple, one scientist solves a 100 year old Theoretical physics equation with momentus ramifications in the Physics world the other creates a drought resistant crop that can benefit Agriculture in dry regions, it's apples and oranges but how do you measure them against each other? Eugenics Theoretically could improve ability and Talent, therefore measuring Eugenic Purity would be just as effective. Education is also directly correlated with ability and Talent, a College Degree in our world is often used as that measuring stick.

As a corollary, in a Meritocracy it must be possible for any citizen to demonstrate ability and talent -- there must not be barriers which inhibit such demonstrations for some and give more opportunities to others.

Non Sequitor. Meritocracy is just as Punitive as any authoritarian system, those who fail on their own Merit have no value, the repercussions affect the next generation resulting in a cycle of repression. The system may give the appearance that equal opportunity is available, the presence of which is nearly impossible to achieve. Meritocracy reinforces systems of inequality it just shifts the definitions of the oppressors and the oppressed and justifies it with the idea of Merit.

 

[Tamwin5]

The Problem is With Merit Rather than Aristocracy, Merit is a rather loose and ill defined term that is more often influenced by subjective opinions, it's one of the major flaws to the idea of Meritocracy.

How do you measure ability and talent? It's not that simple, one scientist solves a 100 year old Theoretical physics equation with momentus ramifications in the Physics world the other creates a drought resistant crop that can benefit Agriculture in dry regions, it's apples and oranges but how do you measure them against each other? Eugenics Theoretically could improve ability and Talent, therefore measuring Eugenic Purity would be just as effective. Education is also directly correlated with ability and Talent, a College Degree in our world is often used as that measuring stick.

Non Sequitor. Meritocracy is just as Punitive as any authoritarian system, those who fail on their own Merit have no value, the repercussions affect the next generation resulting in a cycle of repression. The system may give the appearance that equal opportunity is available, the presence of which is nearly impossible to achieve. Meritocracy reinforces systems of inequality it just shifts the definitions of the oppressors and the oppressed and justifies it with the idea of Merit.

If all children are collectively raised, or at the very least there is a robust system of universal infant and child care, then no, it's not generational. It's very easy to make a dystopia which is trying to be a meritocracy. However, just like with Shared Burdens, the stellaris civic represents the realized ideal.

 

[HFY]

Eugenics Theoretically could improve ability and Talent, therefore measuring Eugenic Purity would be just as effective. Education is also directly correlated with ability and Talent, a College Degree in our world is often used as that measuring stick.

As you said, theoretically.

But read the quote again -- it's not about theory, it's about demonstrated ability and talent.

Your theory means nothing. Your birth means nothing. Have you demonstrated competence?

Non Sequitor.

Lol, you're making one of the same points that I did, but you're trying to discredit mine for some reason?

No, it's not a non sequitor. Equitable access to the things which are measured is absolutely a precondition for being an actual meritocracy rather than an authoritarian hierarchy with pretensions.

As an example: in pre-Mongolian China, they had a bureaucracy which was supposed to be merit-based, but in fact the people who made it through came from a small group of wealthy families in a small area. Those were the people who had the time and money to educate their children specifically for the exam.

In modern terms, that would be like if getting into an ivy league school were based more on your zipcode than on your test scores. (Yes, I know, but we don't discuss modern politics here so let's stick to ancient China.)


Meritocracy means you must have equitable access to demonstrate your merit (including education and opportunities to perform).

Promotion based on an exam which only a few rich families can pass isn't a good example of Meritocracy.

When you say that authoritarian systems dress themselves up as meritocracy you're not wrong -- but the thing is, they are lying -- just the same as they lie about being the People's Democratic Republic of ________ when in truth they are not democratic, not a republic, and certainly not of or for their own people.

Autocracies lie, they quarantine information and "great firewall" their communications. We are not required to believe them when they say they hold fair elections. We are likewise not required to believe them when they say they are meritocracies.

 

[MichaelJanuary]

Meritocracy is inherently incompatible with egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism promotes equal opportunity, with the inherent assumption that all individuals are equal.

Meritocracy's inherent assumption is that some individuals are 'better' and need to be identified, coddled, uplifted and advanced over their lessers.

In a fanatically meritocratic society one can imagine children being identified at young ages and put through special training to groom them for specific positions. This is totally anti egalitarian.

Even today, in egalitarian societies, we see advanced curricula programs being banned, bonuses for individual achievement being blocked by unions. We see performance monitoring (of teachers for e.g.) being frowned upon. Egalitarians are anti meritocracy. We see unions promoting advancement based on time in grade over and irrespective of raw talent/ability/qualifications.

 

[HFY]

Meritocracy is inherently incompatible with egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism promotes equal opportunity, with the inherent assumption that all individuals are equal.

Not sure about this.

I think Egalitarianism requires equal opportunity and equal treatment before the law, not equal outcomes.

Meritocracy is very compatible with "equal opportunity" -- the key criteria for Meritocracy is that the results you deliver (based on your opportunities) will determine your advancement.

Imagine a Shared Burdens (FanEgal) society where the managers and executives don't get paid more than the workers, they just do different work -- which they're better at -- and everyone has equal votes, and everyone has equal protection of the law. What job you do as a job is determined by your demonstrated abilities (Meritocracy), how you're rewarded is determined by your innate equality (Egalitarianism).


IMHO they're compatible, but it's also easy to imagine an Authoritarian Meritocracy which does NOT reward everyone equally.

 

[MichaelJanuary]

Not sure about this.

I think Egalitarianism requires equal opportunity and equal treatment before the law, not equal outcomes.

And fanatic egalitarianism?

 

[HFY]

And fanatic egalitarianism?

You mean the example which I gave in the post you quoted?

Sure, I can repeat that.

Shared Burdens (Fan Egal) Meritocracy would be a place where your job is determined by your performance, but you don't get paid more or less, you don't get more or less healthcare, you don't get a bigger or smaller house, your kids don't get a better or worse education.

"The reward for work well done is the opportunity for more work."

 

[Ren Nobody]

Yes, but if we accept that ideal communism works.

Then we should accept that a Monarchic/Aristocratic (Castsystem) Metocracy can also exist. Either everybody is the same, so the belive is you are born with responsibility and are trained to fullfill it and thereby become the one with most merit. Or there is a Genetic-Castsystem (enhanced by Bio Ascention?) (A factual genetic reason) which made you more meritfull. And everybody would do it and not be corrupt etc. Snce we said Communism etc. also works with no corruption right?

All meretocrsy says is, that you are most qualified by having the most merrit.
Egalatarian/Authoritarian would influence in the direction of, do you have a dutie to the nation? or it to you?
Democrazy/Impireal etc. is the government type, it dictates how the nation is ruled.
Your ethics(incl. egal./auth.) and civics would decide what you would consider the most meritfull.

So i think it should work. Since its always the combination of ethics, civics and government form, that defince the nation and its society, not just one civic.

 

[Mastikator]

Meritocracy is inherently incompatible with egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism promotes equal opportunity, with the inherent assumption that all individuals are equal.

Meritocracy's inherent assumption is that some individuals are 'better' and need to be identified, coddled, uplifted and advanced over their lessers.

In a fanatically meritocratic society one can imagine children being identified at young ages and put through special training to groom them for specific positions. This is totally anti egalitarian.

Even today, in egalitarian societies, we see advanced curricula programs being banned, bonuses for individual achievement being blocked by unions. We see performance monitoring (of teachers for e.g.) being frowned upon. Egalitarians are anti meritocracy. We see unions promoting advancement based on time in grade over and irrespective of raw talent/ability/qualifications.

The idea that some people are better and should be privileged is not meritocracy, it's authoritarianism. "The strong deserve to rule over the weak".

Meritocracy is that some people perform certain jobs better and deserve that job, whether or not that job comes with privileges is orthogonal to meritocracy. In an egalitarian utopia it would not, in a stratified authoritarian dystopia it would.

The question here is not so much the shape of the power structures but the mechanism of choosing who fills what role. The only limitation meritocracy imposes is that nepotism and birthright can't be a part of the equation. Which means that while Meritocracy IN STELLARIS is perfectly compatible with Egalitarianism and Democracy it is not compatible with Dictatorship and Imperialism. BUT it IS compatible with authoritarianism SO LONG AS that authoritarianism isn't also based on the perpetuation of the powers that be.

In a dictatorship the goal of the state is to perpetuate the privilege of the ruling class: the economy, military, research- everything is a means to an end, and that end is the furthering of the power of the ruler. The people work for the rulers. The people exist on behalf of the rulers.
In a democracy the goal of the state is to advance the material interest of the majority, generally the working and specialist class. The rulers work for the people. The rulers are public servants.

If the people are prevented from getting a job because they're not already members of the ruling class then it's incompatible with meritocracy.

It's not impossible (or hard) to imagine an authoritarian meritocracy, but it would have to have the power structure of an egalitarian society. You can imagine a harsh neoliberal dystopia where only those with well paying jobs have a chance to live a good life, but also your ability to get those well paying job is solely decided on your ability to perform said job. The ruling class would not be able to perpetuate their power through their position, only through their ability to perform their jobs. And that's what makes democracies and oligarchies compatible with meritocracy and dictatorships and imperial authorities not

 

[MichaelJanuary]

The idea that some people are better and should be privileged is not meritocracy, it's authoritarianism. "The strong deserve to rule over the weak".

Meritocracy is that some people perform certain jobs better and deserve that job, whether or not that job comes with privileges is orthogonal to meritocracy. In an egalitarian utopia it would not, in a stratified authoritarian dystopia it would.

The question here is not so much the shape of the power structures but the mechanism of choosing who fills what role. The only limitation meritocracy imposes is that nepotism and birthright can't be a part of the equation. Which means that while Meritocracy IN STELLARIS is perfectly compatible with Egalitarianism and Democracy it is not compatible with Dictatorship and Imperialism. BUT it IS compatible with authoritarianism SO LONG AS that authoritarianism isn't also based on the perpetuation of the powers that be.

In a dictatorship the goal of the state is to perpetuate the privilege of the ruling class: the economy, military, research- everything is a means to an end, and that end is the furthering of the power of the ruler. The people work for the rulers. The people exist on behalf of the rulers.
In a democracy the goal of the state is to advance the material interest of the majority, generally the working and specialist class. The rulers work for the people. The rulers are public servants.

If the people are prevented from getting a job because they're not already members of the ruling class then it's incompatible with meritocracy.

It's not impossible (or hard) to imagine an authoritarian meritocracy, but it would have to have the power structure of an egalitarian society. You can imagine a harsh neoliberal dystopia where only those with well paying jobs have a chance to live a good life, but also your ability to get those well paying job is solely decided on your ability to perform said job. The ruling class would not be able to perpetuate their power through their position, only through their ability to perform their jobs. And that's what makes democracies and oligarchies compatible with meritocracy and dictatorships and imperial authorities not

Where i disagree with the above is that IN STELLARIS we are supposed to accept that each ethic/civic is representative of its idealized state. You are positing that the ideal state for Egalitarianism is achievable in Stellaris, but the idealized state for Autocracy/Authoritarianism can not be achieved?

There is no need to assume that the autocrat is not an appointed or elected position, or that there are not mechanisms (in an idealised autocracy) to remove the autocrat and replace them should a better candidate come along. Its even conceivable that the prime duty of the autocrat is to find/groom/train his successor.

You also assume that an egalitarian society will only elect leaders who advance the interest of the society. While that may be the intent, its not necessarily the case that a selfish self absorbed corrupt leader can't wangle his way into power. The reverse is also true for autocratic empires. There is no reason to assume that all autocrats will be selfish, or that they would not be ingrained with the need to place the interests of the empire before their own needs. Again, IN STELLARIS, we are required to accept that the idealized state is achievable.

Put another way:
The Party appoints the The Chairman.
The Chairman is an autocrat with near absolute authority, but remains beholden to The Party.
The Chairman is required to act in the best interest of the country.
The Party can replace The Chairman, and The Chairman's children will not inherit his position.

 

[Mastikator]

Where i disagree with the above is that IN STELLARIS we are supposed to accept that each ethic/civic is representative of its idealized state. You are positing that the ideal state for Egalitarianism is achievable in Stellaris, but the idealized state for Autocracy/Authoritarianism can not be achieved?

There is no need to assume that the autocrat is not an appointed or elected position, or that there are not mechanisms (in an idealised autocracy) to remove the autocrat and replace them should a better candidate come along. Its even conceivable that the prime duty of the autocrat is to find/groom/train his successor.

You also assume that an egalitarian society will only elect leaders who advance the interest of the society. While that may be the intent, its not necessarily the case that a selfish self absorbed corrupt leader can't wangle his way into power. The reverse is also true for autocratic empires. There is no reason to assume that all autocrats will be selfish, or that they would not be ingrained with the need to place the interests of the empire before their own needs. Again, IN STELLARIS, we are required to accept that the idealized state is achievable.

Put another way:
The Party appoints the The Chairman.
The Chairman is an autocrat with near absolute authority, but remains beholden to The Party.
The Chairman is required to act in the best interest of the country.
The Party can replace The Chairman, and The Chairman's children will not inherit his position.

IMO the question is not whether the state is ideal but that the descriptions are honest. A state with Beacon of Liberty IS a beacon of liberty, a democracy with Shared Burdens IS a true communal parity AKA a True Communism™. And a dictatorship with slaver's guild is exactly what it says it is: a despotic, dystopian slaver empire. The game does not ever present a Barbarian Despoiler empire as anything but an empire of bandits. Whether you personally think that is ideal or not is up to you.

The things you claim "can exist" actually do exist and are represented in the game.
An autocrat that is elected and can be removed? Oligarchy.
An autocrat elected based on merit? Oligarchy with Meritocracy.
A "The strong should rule the weak" type empire where the best of the best are promoted and the weak are demoted? YES IT ALREADY EXISTS IN THE GAME, authoritarianism + oligarchy + slaver's guild + meritocracy.

The "idealized state" you describe CAN be represented in the game already. What it comes down to is this: the descriptions are honest and the mechanics matter.