Why meritocracy must win over inclusivity?
On the surface, meritocracy seems like a no-brainer. Why wouldn’t someone opt for a meritocratic governance system? While the answer appears obvious, the incentives are shifting towards a more inclusive environment rather than meritocratic.
Meritocracy is brutal, which is why it works. It means selecting the best, but it also means eliminating the rest. Not everyone can be the best in a selective field, so such an environment inevitably requires eliminating the majority, which leads to disappointing them. Moreover, there is a possibility that a pattern might emerge among the meritocratic individuals—for instance, they might all belong to the same university, social class, background, or ethnicity.
Mediocres perceive this as discrimination. Their underlying argument is: why can’t someone else be the best? This must be rigged. As a result, the meritocratic system was modified to include people from all groups, forcing selection from diverse backgrounds. For example, if you aim to select 10 of the best individuals, you may be compelled to pick five from specific underrepresented groups.
But what if they aren’t “the” best? To include more individuals, particularly from groups who believe they are being discriminated against—not eliminated due to lack of merit—the goalpost must shift. If the criteria for selecting the best are set at A+, but the best from the supposedly discriminated group is B+, the system now favors B+ to meet the quota, prioritizing representation over merit.
This introduces another issue: who else should be included? After all, anyone can claim discrimination. Consequently, the institutional and academic standards are lowered compared to before. The goal of selecting the best is undermined, and mediocres now find a way in. Instead of competing with everyone, individuals only need to outperform others within their group because the group itself is allocated a quota.
This phenomenon rarely stops at one institution. Soon, quotas permeate all fields—from the military to advanced research, from biotech to space engineering. The incentive to become the best diminishes. Why strive to be “the best” when you only need to meet the quota's standards? And for those who don’t fit into any quota, the journey toward excellence often ends in frustration.
When mediocrity is rewarded, excellence is punished—even if that is not the intention. If institutions and society genuinely aim to include diverse individuals, meritocracy remains the only sustainable solution. In a meritocratic environment, the focus shifts from who you are to what you have achieved. Circumstances and identities become secondary; opinions and communities take a backseat. If you meet the criteria, you are included—period.
Any ideology opposing a meritocratic environment should be disbarred. Promoting excellence is the only way civilizations progress, nations prosper, and we get the right heroes to idolize. A B+ scientist cannot inspire a student to achieve A+. That doesn’t happen even in a fictional world.
If you want a Napoleon, you need a Caesar to idolize—and eventually surpass.