thepaperpilot
2aaad90cb5
2.2 KiB
| public | slug | title | prev | next |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| true | technocracy | Technocracy | false | false |
Technocracy
296 words, ~2 minute read.
Technocracies are a form of government where technical experts make the decisions. It sounds appealing and like a solution to the "problem" of "How can Democracy be good if most people are stupid?". Well I don't think that's really a problem in the first place, as it implies some sort of objective knowledge and truth, when really the best decision is the one those affected by the decision most agree with. However, even under the premise that tyranny of the majority is a problem worth addressing, technocracies don't hold up under critical analysis.
Who decides the criteria for technical expertise? Whatever the answer is will be introducing bias into the government, because true meritocracies are a Neoliberal myth. Indeed, this government would likely just perpetuate people's existing material conditions, as those with power will have access to more resources, which means they'll be more likely to be able to meet the qualifications of technical expertise and thus remain in power. Conversely, those in poorer material conditions will be less likely to become technical experts, and thus have less agency to improve their material conditions.
In TikTok Vs Democracy, Abigail Thorne discusses how surveillance capitalism can lead to a technocracy-flavored version of authoritarianism, and argues that even if democracy is "not a system for choosing the best leader or guaranteeing the best outcome" that it is "a system that has maximal respect for everyone's equal humanity".
A similar implementation that's considered slightly more palatable is a democracy where those with more education get more votes. But this still has the same issues of who writes the criteria and perpetuating material conditions. That is, it makes the idea sound more palatable without meaningfully addressing any of the criticisms of technocracies.