ON MERITOCRACY

Day 1,166, 18:01 • Published in Canada Canada • by olivermellors

First, credit is due to Lavis and Rainer (and other correspondents) for fertile discussion about the CAF’s Code of Conduct. One comment, in particular, caused me a bit of discomfort. I wondered why.

Well, here it is:

“all the CoC has really done (as lavis has aptly pointed out) is allowed a few people to maintain their grip on power” (Rainer)

This got me itchy, not because it is surprising but precisely because it should not be surprising. In fact it is precisely as it should be. It is necessary for long term viability. A group which does not guarantee orderly and predictable self management, will soon cease to exist, victim of its own short-sightedness.

There is great value in having a “special group” to carry on established tradition, be repositories for organizational knowledge and expertise, and police institutional ethic. This has always been well known. The value of such “special groups” is so pervasively appreciated that they exist in almost all social organizations of which two large scale examples might be “aristocracy” and “meritocracy”. The days of the noble are long ended, replaced by the “able”. Which is what I discuss now.

It is really not much of a complaint that some hold positions for a long time. Especially if they serve with vigour, insight, and effectiveness. It is when a member of the “top group” shows himself slovenly, short-sighted, self-serving and incompetent that things go wrong. In those circumstances, it is best if the levers of power are well known and accessible to others. A good Code of Conduct will accomplish that. It will create concrete standards and expectations against which to measure performance and behaviours. It will provide for an accessible method by which to weigh and appraise. And, it will describe consequences for cases where the standard has not been met. Objectively, the CAF’s Code of Conduct seems to fit the bill.

“Objectively good” is not much of a compliment, however. The better test is whether the practice has been beneficial or not. On this score, there is some dispute and I haven’t an opinion to share. I will say, however, that it is in the CAF’s interest to demonstrate, cogently, that the practice has lived up to the promise. Greater transparency tends to increased understanding. But it carries its own risks as well, and risks which we should face honestly. Chief amongst the risks presented to the forthright, is the closed-minded, result oriented critic animated by the zeal of the converted. Enter, my friend.

Ever had a friend/mate/colleague that you couldn’t talk to openly? How often was this because “no matter what I say, they interpret it as consistent with their own theory?” Players on erepublik have a strong tendency to see everything as confirming their theory, ignore anything which might be disconfirming and, for good measure, continuously attack the messenger who brings something new. The “something new” is really quite frightening, from all appearances, because it MIGHT somehow eventually argue against one’s pet theory/thing/preference.

If I were a member of CAF HC I would be very reluctant to discuss anything at all sophisticated with players who say, up front: “I am making it my personal mission to prove….. Everything they/he/she says is crap and bullshit….. I have no evidence but if it quacks like a duck….. I know it is true….the reality is….I will find a way to make them/him/her admit it… etc” In short: if you want information, show yourself able to use it intelligently and wisely.

The Code of Conduct appears, on the whole to have served eCanada well. We have a well ordered military force which obeys civilian instructions. The president recently advised that the force had responded to every order and that he had no cause for complaint. It has been there when called upon. The way to the top seems pretty clear, based on perseverance and merit. Not all can be chosen, however. And the force appears to have been responsive to the need for change such as record keeping. There may be some legitimate nagging doubts about past incidents: “I’ll just tell Tem he was drunk and approved ” is an example. And there may be much we don’t know about. At present, however, it wouldn’t be crazy to recognize the good in a CoC which “allowed a few people to maintain their grip on power”.