The idea that our institutions should be democratic is an uncritical assumption in most of the West. Our lack of skepticism about this assumption is pernicious. Democracy is critically flawed.

My primary contention is that democracy is a highly inefficient way to structure our institutions for progress. This is because the attitudes of the majority are frequently misinformed, misguided, and even dangerous. Take an example: climate change. The average American knows very little about geology, oceanography, climatology, economics, or the scientific method. But they have collectively more say in deciding climate policy than climate experts. This is absurd. Letting the experts decide these issues would lead to far more informed policy. And, indeed, as we have seen with climate change, letting the general public have such a say in these issues has been disastrous.

My argument does not just hold for climate change. It holds for almost all subjects on which there can be experts. In general, policy is best determined by experts with relevant knowledge in the issues pertinent to that policy. Democracy ensures an enormously disproportionate say for non-experts in policy. Therefore, democracy is not the best way to determine policy. Instead of Democracy, I propose an alternative, technocratic system of government. In this system, experts, determined by educational status, would make policy within their area of expertise in consultation with other relevant experts. For instance, climate policy would be made by climate scientists in consultation with economists. And experts would still vote amongst themselves to determine representatives for their fields to meet in a legislature.

Rather than defending technocracy directly, I want to address the most common objections to it to show how my argument is far stronger than most suspect.

First, many will argue that democracy is necessary to represent the common interest. According to this objection, while experts are good at determining efficient policy, efficient policy is not the only important aim of government. Democracy plays a crucial role in ensuring that people’s preferences are heard. Indeed, one might argue that it is the fundamental right of a citizen to have their interests represented by their government. And the interests of experts are not likely to match the interests of the average citizen.

I have two responses. First, I reject the idea that it is important for the government to serve the common interest. I think, rather, that it is important for the government to serve the correct interests, regardless of how popular those interests are. For instance, if most people in Utah thought that it was in their interests that no one get a vaccine, I think it would be objectively better if the government ignored these interests. Preferences are important, but misbegotten preferences are less important. What we should strive for is that the interests of people if they were thinking rationally are served, and experts are more likely to estimate this ideal than the common person.

Secondly, even if the government should serve the common interest, democracy is a terrible way to achieve this goal. This is primarily because your average person is so fundamentally misinformed that they will not know what policies best serve their interests even if they have an idea of what their interests actually are. For instance, almost anyone would agree that it is within their interests for themselves and their loved ones to remain healthy. Yet, a significant percentage of the population opposes vaccination and believes in alternative medicine. This mismatch can be accounted for by the fact that most people are simply not capable of understanding what policies best serve their interests.

The next objection I want to consider is that democracy is a necessary failsafe against oppression. According to this objection, without democracy oppression of one group against the other becomes too easy. For instance, if academic experts had disproportionate say in our political system, the lure of power might become too strong, and abuse of the non-experts would begin. I find it interesting that the people who usually levy this objection tend to be the most politically progressive and left-leaning around. Yet, the experts in society, that is, the academic population, tend to represent progressive ideals far better than the public, and so would be less likely to abuse power than your average elected representative. Nevertheless, this is a serious objection.

In response, I note that nothing about pure democracy safeguards oppression. What democracy really safeguards is that the majority’s interests are preserved. This has been and still is a significant detriment to minority populations, which is why the American system introduced many ‘checks’ such as the bill of rights to avoid the oppression of the majority. However, democracy has no special claim to these kinds of checks. An alternative, technocratic system could just as easily utilize such checks.

A final objection specific to technocracy is worth addressing. Because education is far more accessible to the privileged in society (i.e. rich, white) this system would be racist or classist. In response, let me point out that our system is already laden with privilege. And experts are more likely to be sensitive to these issues, and amend them faster than the average American. Indeed, what holds us back from social equality today is the continued ignorance of the public towards the systemic issues faced by many groups.

While I have by no means covered an exhaustive list of objections, the three I have examined are some of the most important. I want to conclude by drawing attention to the ways our unexamined allegiance to a democratic republic has harmed us over the past century. Society continues to be held back by its least informed elements: millions have died from preventable diseases (notably COVID, measles) because of the spread of misinformation and general ignorance of medicine. The world is headed for a catastrophic path due to climate change, and the profound ignorance and denial of many people prevents us from averting this disaster. A technocratic system would not be held back by the ignorance of the public and may be what we need to save us from looming danger. Democracy may not only be an unexamined relic, but a relic whose time has very much passed. ■

— Anonymous