Meritocracy: myth or reality

The word meritocracy is lately being bandied about in the ongoing bickering between the two political parties. Like any abstract noun, meritocracy can be given different interpretations and meanings.

The key factor of meritocracy is the objective measurement and use of talent

Perhaps by mentioning the opposites one may be in better position to comprehend its meaning. One of opposite is aristocracy, which, being based on ascribed status, differentiates it from the achieved status often stressed in the definition of meritocracy. A concrete example of ascribed status is the title of prince bestowed at birth on a baby boy of a king or queen. That title or status is gained due to birth and not on the basis of talent or effort.

Aristocracy is not solely based on royalty but also on titles of nobility, which can be legally passed from one generation to another.

Conversely, meritocracy is based on achieved status without any legal provision or guarantee of inheritance. An individual enjoying status acquired through merit cannot pass it to his/her legal heirs. Indeed, meritocracy can be defined as an aristocracy of talent that is recreated afresh in each generation.

As in modern society the bestowal of aristocratic titles has become restricted simply to the royal family, the belief has gained ground that aristocracy has given way to meritocracy. The cynic, however, might argue that the often-extolled virtues of meritocracy are being continuously undermined by subtle means and practices through which status can be acquired by favouritism rather than merit. One of these practices is patronage.

Edward Zammit, one of the leading Maltese sociologists, in his book Colonial Inheritance, published in 1984, maintains that patronage has been widely used in Malta. He argues that this is due to the lack or scarcity of resources in the island, which tends to create a feeling of uncertainty among the population.

It was through patronage that individuals could insure themselves against insecurity as it provided a ‘down-to-earth insurance policy against uncertainty’.

Almost 30 years have passed since Zammit wrote this thesis. Does his argument hold true today? In other words, do the same perceptions about patronage still prevail in Malta? Is it still widely used and to what extent?

The raw observer looking at our educational system can be easily tempted to answer these questions in very positive terms. The educational system operates on the principles of meritocracy, which secures objective measurements of talent independent of any inherited advantage. By developing the innate ability of the intelligent and reward those who work hard, the school system motivates those with talent and willing to work hard to reach the highest possible level of excellence.

The key factor of meritocracy is the objective measurement and use of talent, independent of any advantage that may be inherited or acquired by means of patronage. Treating individuals according to objective criteria of talent and achievement has given rise to the notion of equality of opportunity by creating a measurement of personal success to which individuals, whatever their race, sex, beliefs or social class origin, can aspire.

This argument can be substantiated by the number of persons who, by means of their efforts at school and hard work, have managed to experience inter-generational social mobility.

The detractors of this meritocratic system may, however, point out that the upper classes still manage to pass on to their offspring the social rewards that were bestowed on them. Their social networking, a form of social capital that complements and enhances their economic and cultural capital, enables them to be closer to the power holders, thus making them more eligible to get the social and economic rewards. This means that some individuals manage to start from a pole position, which enables them to reach the chequered flag in front of the others and be given the coveted trophy.

Patronage may be one of the individualistic links that provide such a head start and, as long as it persists to be a characteristic feature of our society, we can never claim that this is a meritocratic society.

Of course, a complete eradication of all traces of patronage among the political class is difficult to achieve. In their personal intervention, power holders would like to make sure that the key positions resulting from political decisions and a high commitment to the ideals espoused by the party in office are filled by trustworthy persons who have explicitly expressed their loyalty to their cause. This kind of patronage is not deemed to be antonymous to meritocracy.

By the logic of this argument, meritocracy must make an allowance for drawing a line separating the subjective and objective criteria in the appointments of personnel.

The question is how blurred or clear is this line. A scenario where patronage by being misused and/or extensively used is translated into clientelism, cronyism or outright nepotism will make meritocracy look more like a myth than a reality.