Finding Merit

This year I read two books by Ayn Rand- "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged". Very beautifully (and bitterly) written. A considerable amount of depth is evident in every word written in these two books. Nevertheless, like most extreme view points, these books fail to capture the complexity of human society. At the same time, they do raise some key questions that we can ignore only at our own peril.

Let me start with what I agree. I agree with the importance of work, the value of ability against need and justice against charity. I concur with the view that collectivism can promote mediocrity and that many do try to ride on the back of few who produce and create. However, I do not agree with a simplistic view of the world that demands enlightenment from everybody. It completely ignores the fact that the world essentially runs on principles of power and opportunism. You cannot wish it away or solve it magically.Moreover, every argument has two sides. Overall, things are much more complex and the solutions are ever more so elusive.

Many people believe that Ayn Rand stands for capitalism. I don't think so. A careful read will convince you that she damns any system that asks people to discard reason, merit, independence, or happiness. She denounces every system that does not value ability or forces one man to live for another. I think that this can easily include most of the known systems of government except Meritocracy (rule by merit). Hence, I feel Ayn Rand stands for Meritocracy and not an exploitative Capitalism. Once we can see this, it is easy to see that all the problems inherent to a state built on tenets of Meritocracy apply to Ayn Rand's philosophy. Interested reader should read about Singapore to understand the advantages and disadvantages of such a system with a practical example.

I feel that most of the systems of government can succeed, provided certain conditions are met. However, only a few have managed to actually succeed in actually enriching the life of its citizens, maintain peace and provide meaningful progress. Too theoretical or puritan frameworks tend to degenerate more easily. Hence, Communism without fail degenerates into dictatorship while Aristocracy often degenerates to Plutocracy and so on. Meritocracy falls just in between the extremely theoretical and the viable. Provided the country can establish an objective scale of merit that takes into account education, practical experience and practical results achieved into consideration; it is possible to make a meritocracy work. Otherwise there is a genuine danger of it degenerating into a Plutocracy (rule by money) or Oligarchy (rule by elite). Till somebody goes on to establish such a framework (and a country), capitalistic democracies remain our best bet for the better or the worse.

Finally, I think that the same principle can help one make a model corporation. In fact I feel that if a country is run like a well-run corporation, the result would be a true meritocracy.