Chumocracy versus meritocracy

Life's best prizes don't go to the most deserving, has been the oft-heard rant of many a competitor. Indeed, Herman Melville had written that, 'All experience teaches that wherever there is a great national establishment, employing large number of officials, the public must be reconciled to support many incompetent men; for such is the favouritism and nepotism always prevailing in the purlieus of these establishments that some incompetent men are always admitted to the exclusion of many of the worthy". This sounds familiar, rather, very familiar. Old boys'club, the bonds of the elite school or an exclusive mission college, will enable one to get a foot in the door of opportunity and more often than not, the whole doorway. Such is the power of the bonds of the school tie, which facilitates a head start to leap over the competition, no matter how formidable the rivals' qualifications or expertise. Most people will have a story of their own of having been left out or left behind because the competition was fixed.

It looks as if the world we live in is not fair. No two people's situations are identical , at least at the start. There are differences of birth, of colour, of abilities and certainly of wealth. Sometimes these differences are overcome with hard work, education and using the opportunities encountered or situations converted into opportunities through aid and assistance of a good schoolmate or an affectionate uncle or even simple with the use of money. Conversely, these advantages of birth are frittered away through over indulgence and waywardness but that is more to do with individual lack of will. In any case, it is another story.

In reality, there is no foolproof system of recognising merit or for that matter, even stupidity is not plainly apparent. Sure there are processes and layers of evaluation and by crossing the predetermined benchmarks, some cross the line to make the grade and those that fall behind become part of the failed grade majority. And this is it; the result matters. It is never over till the last ball has been bowled and the resourceful ones will seek alternatives to the layers of evaluation. There are discretions available, backdoor accesses, etc. and these tempt the unrewarded or the failed grade population. Herein come the search for school ties, long lost relatives or rank middlemen who can help make the grade with some inducements. Such are the ways of the world.

Who will judge the umpires has been a tough proposition. It is like the policemen trying to police the fellow men on the force. Can there be any objectivity when your peers evaluate your ability? Unless the elements for competence are classified and the person claiming entitlement is judged against each element, merit becomes a subjective consideration, mainly because the architects of umpiring like it that way and gives them the unquestionable privileges of deciding their preferences. It is perhaps not a travesty that those who root for merit, want it most for others, presuming that their own positions derive from absolute standards of merit. A mere glance on the management landscape would show true merit in a minority, acquired merit in a majority and merit conferred on some through a fortuitous combine of stars, uncles and sundry relatives.

The nature of our own polity leans towards incentivising mediocrity. Recruiters are careful to draft good enough work force so as not create rivals for the entrenched ones in order to minimise disruptions in work relationships. Perhaps there is merit in the approach to perpetuate mediocrity, because the cautious will never go for adventurism. Just as well, for survival is paramount, thriving can come later or not at all.

(The views expressed are strictly personal)