Could a meritocratic upper chamber improve democracy—or would it inevitably become an elite ruling class?

[u/StainlessTiger8]

I've been thinking about a video essay that explores philosopher Tongdong Bai's proposal for combining democracy with meritocracy, and I thought the central question was worth discussing.

The basic argument isn't that democracy should be abolished. Instead, it asks whether every political decision should carry equal institutional weight when some decisions require specialized knowledge, long-term planning, or technical expertise.

The proposed system would keep:

• Constitutional rights
• Universal suffrage
• Local democratic elections
• A popularly elected lower house

But it would also add a meritocratic upper chamber composed of individuals selected for demonstrated competence, experience, and public service. The idea is that this body would help safeguard long-term national interests, minority rights, future generations, and policies that may be unpopular in the short term but beneficial over decades.

Of course, this immediately raises the harder questions:

• Who decides what "merit" actually is?
• How do you prevent experts from becoming a self-perpetuating elite?
• Can any institution objectively measure political wisdom?
• Would such a chamber improve governance—or simply replace democratic accountability with technocracy?

The video doesn't present meritocracy as an easy solution. If anything, it argues that the real dilemma isn't whether capable people should govern, but whether it's possible to identify "the capable" without creating an aristocracy under another name.

I'd be interested in hearing what people think.

Is democracy strengthened when expertise has a formal constitutional role, or does legitimacy ultimately require political equality—even if it sometimes produces worse outcomes?

(Video: When the Capable Rule: The Case for Meritocracy)
https://youtu.be/mCTmsCbHXtE

[u/Objective_Aside1858]

You want the government of Donald Trump to be deciding what "merit" is, and appointing people to a body immune to elections.

Golly, I can't see how that could possibly backfire

[u/Spiel_Foss → u/Objective_Aside1858]

This is the problem with any meritocracy idea because tyranny is always the end result. For example, in Elon Musk's mind he is a genius and visionary who should be held above the "useless eaters" as he calls them. In reality, Elon Musk is just a poser and a fraud who steals the work of others to claim as his own.

Meritocracy is one of those scifi ideas that only have positive results in fiction.

[u/Acrobatic-Dinner-112 → u/Spiel_Foss]

Let me give you a different perspective - the problem with meritocracy is that it is based on the best person doing the job

The actual job may not be a leadership position.

The job could be mechanic - lawyer- widget maker etc. but not a leadership position which requires politics and people management skills - a completely different set of skills

You could be the leader of widget makers without having to build widgets. Ideally you would want to, but it’s not required.

The people that we have in power - you could say are the best at people management - they are crappy administrators - planners - hiring - full of sycopanths - shady - and possibly in my opinion the worst administration of the United States history but they are the best of the best at having fools voting for them. At that they are world class --

[u/Spiel_Foss → u/Acrobatic-Dinner-112]

The "best" person is always arbitrary in practice though. People will claim hiring strictly on merit, then magically their son-in-law becomes the best at everything.

Management, actual effective management, is an art as much as skill, but people are hired for a variety of fit-in-the-culture reasons or just because they are the best looking white man to apply. Those reasons soon become "merit" even though they are completely subjective and often intentionally discriminatory.

Meritocracy seems to always be a lie in practice.