What do you think about a system were limited legislative and/or executive power is given to people selected based on their skills and expertise, who should remain super-partis (above factions) rather than elected by a more or less democratic system (technocracy )?
Would it be feasible and beneficial to have an apolitical an international organ to ensure prosperity and progress? How could that be accomplished?
In a way that already happens with the central banks and WHO and other organisations, but most of them are almost non-existent executive power, and are limited to under-funded consultancy agencies.
Definitions:
Technocracy is a form of government in which the decision-maker or makers are selected on the basis of their expertise in a given area of responsibility, particularly with regard to scientific or technical knowledge.
Bureaucracy, specific form of organization defined by complexity, division of labour, permanence, professional management, hierarchical coordination and control, strict chain of command, and legal authority.
In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905; translated, 1930) and The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (1920; translated 1947) Weber described the rational–legal form of authority that now exists in many organizations, to which he ascribed the term "bureaucracy", which I surmise is what this query refers to as "technocracy". (The central banks and WHO and other organizations this query mentions are all bureaucracies.) Weber deemed that bureaucracy based on hierarchy of authority and a system of rules was the most efficient way of working. Subsequent analysis identified many disadvantages including the tendency of bureaucracies to become procedure dominated, heavily formalized to the detriment of initiative and flexibility, and characterized by rigid behavior among senior managers that can lead to standardized services that do not meet the needs of clients. As a result, bureaucracies are known to demotivate their personnel.
Olivier Serrat Thanks for your contribution, but bureacracy is a form of organization, while technocracy is a for of government, which are two distinct concepts despite their being often associated.
I agree with the rest of your contribution and I'd suggest that bureaucracy is not compatible with technocracy simply because it replaces merit (skills and expertise) with standards.
I'd like to add to the list of cons of bureaucracy the Latin concept "Promoveatur ut amoveatur" (lt. be promoted to be removed) where someone is promoted in order to free their role while preventing them from accomplishing anything due to lack of power, overwhelming workload or incompetence for the new role .
Nevertheless, technocracy doesn't have to be technocratic. For instance, there could be a confederation or federation whose executive power in a certain topic (ex. environment) are attributed to an organ that is not democratically elected, but selected on merits. Then this organ could say, we need this and these are the options to achieve it, the elected government decides which one to implement and how to integrate it with their policy.
Otherwise, there could be a fixed number of selected scientist in the legislative body and requirement for the executive bodies. For instance, min 1/3 of the parliament needs to have a master of science and the minister of science requires a PhD.
Nicolò M. Villa, a technocracy is any portion of a bureaucracy that is run by technologists. Ergo, it is a bureaucracy.
Olivier Serrat , that is not the definition I read on the enciclopedia britannica, the merriam-webster dictionary, the oxford dictionary and the cambridge dictionary. Also, technologist is not a synonym of expert nor scientist. Anyway, I use the definition of executive and/or legislative power given to people selected based on their skills and expertise rather than elected by a more or less democratic system. Unless you suggest that they're indivisible and explain why, I'd like to not argue on semantic and focus on my question instead: what do you think about a system were legislative and/or executive power is given to selected based on their skills and expertise rather than elected by a more or less democratic system?
From sociological perspective,we understand that; human being are consistently technocracy is not technology from Serrat view.Bueracracy is sub-set of technocracy ad the universal set is: governance.The structural situations of a country,her geographical location,the people,and their beliefs are factors to be really considered while thinking of any system to be adopted in a state.Villa had touched the ingredients of technocracy and bureaucracy then from this definition; the two concepts overlapping,hence I would submit that technocracy is better for far development and growth.
Hi Nicolo,
reading Orwell's "1984" and Huxley's "Brave new world" will give you better answers than any research paper on the topic.
Meliha