DEMOCRACY IS BEST SERVED WITH MERITOCRACY

MAYANK R. GARG

Respcted Chief guest, principal sahib, teachers and friends. The topic of today’s debate

competion is “In the Openion of the House Democracy is Best Served with Meritocracy” and

I am going to put forward my arguments against it.

Sir, most of the nations in the world are enjoying democracy today although there is no

dearth of the people who make fun of the very idea of democracy. Even world leaders like

Churchill are not left behind in this rat race when he says that “The best argument against

democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” Sir, Democracy is the only

system which has been proved to be successful in the modern world. Democracy is form of

government, where a constitution guarantees basic personal and political rights, fair and free

elections, and independent courts of law. The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs

the security of all.

Now coming to Meritocracy let me define it first because many friends of mine here

may not be aware of the true meaning of Meritocracy. A meritocracy is a system

of government based on rule by merit. In this context, "merit" means intelligence, effort, and

ability. The word "meritocracy" is most often used to describe a society where social status is

assigned through competition, on the assumption that the winners deserve their resulting

advantage, usually a position of power within the government. Meritocratic governments and

organizations stress talent, education, and competence, rather than existing differences such as

social class, ethnicity, or sex.

 Sir, in the context of India, which is a multi cultural, multi racial country where so

many languages are spoken, where thousands of dialects exist, it would not be proper to

impose Meritocracy because there will be no representation of the people of different parts of

this country. A few selected people will govern the nation, then, and the illiterate people from

Jharkhand, north eastern parts of this country and from other areas will be left unrepresented.

They will feel cheated and there will be natural discontent among the masses of the

unrepresented areas. There has to be proper representation not only of people of different areas

but of different casts, sexes, and groups. Sir, I am of the opinion that maintaining the integrity

of the nation is more important than the so called Meritocracy. I do not mean to say here, that

the meritorious should not be rewarded. This is of prime importance. But there are other ways

and means to do so. We can experiment with this thing within the bureaucratic system. We can

afford to make changes there, which are much needed instead of shaking the delicate fabric of

Indian democracy. And I don’t mean Indian democracy alone, here. Most of the democratic

states are multi racial countries. What is right for India is right for all the democratic countries.

Sir, my opponents say that there will be efficiency, energy, justice in the meritocratic

form of the government. But who will decide there as to who is meritorious? A person? A

group of people? Or a U.P.S.C. type of agency? Which pours out corrupt bureaucrats every

year? I think a corrupt ruler will form a coterie around him in a Meritocratic form of

government. He will oblige those persons in such groups who will best suit to his purpose .

this will certainly lead to misgovernence and ultimately to Dictatorship. Meritocracy is only a

euphemism. Sir, I don’t think any body in the house is foolish enough to welcome the hard

hearted Dictatorship disguised as soft hearted meritocracy.