The reason for this issue are the state elections in my country. To my knowledge, there was always such a body of distinguished individuals in science and education, but have always depended on the policy, even several decades Academy of Arts and Sciences in Serbia was in conflict with the regime. Knowledge can only bring reforms? Is it really possible to rule meritocracy? How is in your country, bring your experience.
As you have suggested my friend, Ljubomir, the authority of knowledge should take the lead in any civilized society, should be followed; not follow!
As you have suggested my friend, Ljubomir, the authority of knowledge should take the lead in any civilized society, should be followed; not follow!
The knowledge should be considered indesigning any plan or any development for any government or state
If I understand correctly, meritocracy means that the hard working and well deserving will get the position to contribute to nation building. If the Govt has the knowledgable scientists as advisors, the advice from these people must be heeded, as far as the advice will bring progress to the nation. I see there is some meritocracy, and I wait for more.
Hello Pr.Ljubomir
in my opinion , in our new age , age of democracy , people don't like much the idea of meritocracy or at least they don't understand it or believe in it , in my country for example , they never put who is right in rule , their idea is that all people are equal so everybody has the right to rule if he was elected , anyway i think this is wrong ,but the best thing scientists and knowledge people can do is to play the role of a reference model , they suggest solutions and ideas and it is upon the ruler to apply these solutions , in history its always been like this , for example in Islamic Caliphate , they always used " chora " " advisory board " , to give them advises about many subjects , religion science war ..
Dear Ljubomir
Professionalize the state public servant , with consequent improvement of service to the citizen . This is the main objective of the new cycle Assessment of Individual Performance ( ADI ) of the Department of Management and Planning of the Brazilian government servers through the application of general knowledge and evidence on public and performance evaluation proper administration.
The measure aims to present new challenges in professional development . Therefore, the evaluation of Individual Performance ( ADI ) is a democratic process of personnel evaluation . The initiative promotes the training and update of the server and is included in modern management practices that promote the improvement of service delivery to the population . It is also worth stating that this tool is adopted by 11 Brazilian states , such as São Paulo, Espírito Santo , Santa Catarina , Acre and others. It serves as a thermometer , a radiograph of the situation of human resources in public administration and even a diagnosis for lifting needs improvement , adjustment and update . The evaluation process can also be used as a parameter to evaluate the competence of each server , their functional profile and his vocation to exercise the office in which it is packed, in addition to supporting the mapping server profile for racing and for a possible relocation to receive bonus
Currently , about 800 managers of state government were chosen by this process , which represented a revolution , while oxygenation of public management and professionalism of managers who are no longer an instrument of political statement . Managers chosen by meritocracy reinforce good outcome. Meritocracy is a revolution within the public administration . A very good idea because for a long time , people were placed in management by policy statement without having the technical capability to perform the job.
Meritocracy was an innovation that has brought more credibility to the public sector , which is already an immediate improvement and certainly in the long term will bring immense benefits . In addition to providing the public service of trained professionals .
My experience is that the pool of good, honest, reliable knowledge in governments can be seriously compromised by evil, wicked, self-serving politicians. Typically you will find the good people fighting against this, in various forms, with different efficiencies. In my country, South Africa, I have seen evil governments being replaced by evil governments, oh yes, they come dressed up in many fashionable styles, and 'fight' for the 'right' causes, until they are in power, then the advisors, the academies of arts and sciences etc.seem to disappear in the race towards self-enrichment, corruption and scandalous behaviour.
Ljubomir asked me directly and I try to answer this question without looking at the discussion that has already taken place. Then I'll see.
In our history there is the shame of only 10 academics who refused to sign the "oath of allegiance to fascism" (complicated story because even professors, close to the Communist Party, signed the document). Currently I know what happens at the national level only for reading the press, but in my experience (non-academic) meritocracy is the last of the criteria in the selection of employees or directors (the ruling class prefers faithful adherence to loyalty. Nobody feel the need to have "contrary assistant" that will highlight the problems that exist in every decision. Because I want to be optimistic, I hope that this crisis will lead and impose changes in this regard. But I am against blaming politicians of all wrongdoing. It is the whole society that is ill and no longer recognizes the hierarchy of values. As for myself for many years I have applied to work, I thought of giving, in that way, my contribution to good relations in civil society; but I was wrong, it was not enough, we would have to do more and differently (but there was also a little silly conceit, "we do not want to dirty our hands … " ... etc.).
Regarding what was said by Prof. Marwan Obeidat, these days I'm reading a little book of Feyerabend "CONTRO L’AUTONOMIA - AGAINST THE AUTONOMY" (I do not know if there is an English version). I believe there is much to discuss about the much-vaunted "autonomy" of science (I'm obviously not talking about censorship of research. I'm talking, in a general sense, about scientists who want to "call themselves unrelated to the story").
It has almost reached the point where we should consider legislating meritocracy. This means establishing a rule that those who serve on advisory boards should be selected based on merit, not on influence.
Good question. Yes ideas of such eminent scientists are always needed. In my country eminent persons will be allotted those positions. Luckily one of the Scientist Abdul Kalam is elected as 11th President of India.
In India we have IAS (Indian Adminstartive Service) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Administrative_Service
These candidates are selected based on exclusive merit and will be given positions as advisors to ministers of the country as well as states and foreign country ambassadors. All secretarial staff for the ministers belongs to this category. Exclusively prominent scientists would be selected for the positions of chairman of important organizations like UGC (university grants commission), Atomic Energy Commission etc.
The following are very few links of that category
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._P._J._Abdul_Kalam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._S._Swaminathan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anil_Kakodkar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yash_Pal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raghunath_Anant_Mashelkar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Madhavan_Nair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen
As a scientist one needs to he honorable, of good reputation, consistent, knowledgeable about current affairs in a Country and stable. Many times you find scientists who are inclined towards academics, they fail as leaders because they cannot stand before people and lead. Technical knowledge is needed since many countries are involved in research, they need man power, people who are all rounded.
@Ljubomir,
It is true that in my own country academic leaders are consulted and are on planning commission. However, question is whether knowledge prevails or politics. It is perhaps communality in the academia everywhere that it always differ from the establishment in general on merit of policies. however, meritocracy as a political philosophy can be materialised as suggested by Professor James Peters, I doubt. In my own country a renowned economist is the PM, however, his certain policy decisions involving economics were made under domestic and external compulsions.
A friend sent me an interesting SMS, " In our country, the first class becomes scholars, scientists, engineers and physicians. To rule over them are second class people who qualify examinations for bureaucratic and administrative services, to rule over them are third class students who join politics and run the government. And, those who have not seen even the school, become godmen, saints, seer etc. around them moves the entire India. Politics is a dirty, muddy and slippery turf where no academic person may be successful.
Similis simili gaudet. To G.Petronius, "What power has law where only money rules"
The lower knowledge, the higher ability to declare: "I know all and best of all!"
If such person succeed in getting any decision-making post then probability of right decision is 50%.
Dear All,
I do not use to flatter question owners but this is a very comprehensive question.
Regarding the replies, that of Abdalla seems to me a very fitting one. However, one should consider still 2 more factors:
1. The human habitus of the scientific advisory board: integrity, naivety, strength of character (backbone) of the particular members who are not mercenaries of politicians and businessmen.
2. The demand of politicians for independent (objective) opinions. I am afraid, politicians and powerful people do not need such honest and honourable people.
I propose you to read http://thesolutionsjournal.com/node/419 written by Donella Meadows and please remember the state of our planet and the eagerness of powerful figures towards senseless economic growth.
Dear Jeremiah and Mohammad,
The offenses, sins and all kinds of infirmity of scientists turned into politicians are not consequences of scientific education. This is merely a result of human weakness and the lack of ethical backgrounds which is programmed into our modern (?) culture. Interestingly, ethical failure is the end point of many discussions on RG? Is it the determining paradigm of our age?
Dear Kamal,
You have drafted the common opinion of this thread’s participants. I wonder what have done these honourable scientists for altering this terrible situation? Are we able to defend collectively even our own common interests?
Scientists and professors must actively participate in policy making procedure to give a right direction to the country.
Experience and/or knowledge improves the chances of success of policy formulation and/or implementation! Scientists should therefore not only serve in advisory boards but in government as well!
Professor Kamal we must know that there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. Not all academicians are wise, decisions based on knowledge without wisdom can be detrimental and may cause havoc to a Country. Wisdom is not earned at the University, it is earned by walking and listening to wise people. The problem with many of us academicians is that we have a know it all attitude. They are not ready to listen to reason, they can be so strong willed. Such people cannot make independent decisions, they cannot be trusted. They need to seat in a panel of wise and intelligent people, their decisions must be tried with time before they can be accorded the power to make those decisions.
Knowledge certainly improves chances of wisdow - practical and/or pragmatic intelligence!
@ Jeremiah probably you are talking about practicality if I understand correctly. Yes apart from knowledge we should have practical knowledge/experience how things work if we implement them. Then everything goes fine without any problem.
Be it knowledge or wisdom, but selection or nomination to advisory boards of the Government is based on political connections or lobbying every where in the world. If you have connections every thing can follow. in this world. Real knowledgeable wise will not run after such nomination. However, exceptions are every where.
Prof. Sharma even in connection, there are some gifts that will stand out. You do not just have to know people, your wisdom will market you. Why do you find intellectuals from third world countries getting scholarships and permanent jobs abroad. It is in the same way that intellectuals will make it in the political arena when they are gifted.
Dear friends, I have just found a good article on scientists as policy advisers: the context of influence by professor Gianos, CSU , Fullerton! Enjoy! Message about an error is ignorable! You can read it free, follow the steps!
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/448029?uid=3738928&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103643112613
How do You consider this nice sentence of Albert Einstein? Even then!
http://libguides.tts.edu.sg/IBGeography_political
Ljubomir, Einstein’s quote may suit for a sincere politician who want to justify all people,
"Politics is the last resort for the scoundrels"-George Bernard Shaw. I believe this exactly suit for so called politicians who come for power sake and money sake.
Prof Ljubomir, I agree with Einstein in that! There's more FUN to be a scientist than to be a politician. Physics is based on the natural laws that can be more easily predicted and studied. But a politician seems to need 'feelers' to sense things that always are in a state of flux. So, perhaps, the word common to Physics and Politics is FLUX...
Yes, politics is very complicated, yet we cannot live without it. I don’t know how or why or what people decide to go into politics, yet probably it is not different from the decision of being a merchant, a banker or an engineer: some inclination combined with some opportunity, etc.
Opportunity raises the thought of opportunism: yes, some people may abuse the power. But things can be wrong even when the scientist-made-politician forgets the science and falls in love with the power. As far as I know, Salazar was a great Professor of Economics that was called to be Finance Minister and then Prime Minister, in order to save the economy of the Country. We know how it ended.
In a free society, there are controls on politicians, but people must really care.
If politicians ask for scientists’ advice, it does help; of course, only if they also intend to use it.
I think that this issue is at the core of democracy as it is conceived nowadays as referred to the interplay between the authority of knowledge and politics. From Wikipedia: Politics is the practice and theory of influencing other people on a civic or individual level. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance — organized control over a human community, particularly a state. The practice and theory of influencing other people highly depend on a largely shared vision of what could be a desirable future. Who is able to provide such a vision? Certainly prominent scientists in advisory boards can provide different scenarios of desirable futures, but the final decision on which will be the vision to pursue will be taken by politicians and should be based (but it is not always so) on the consensus of the majority of people (stakeholders). But how do you establish what will be a common desirable future for a human community what are the criteria? Only just by the actual and current consensus (often narrow minded and short term) or by a broader vision considering both current and future stakeholders that have not yet the chance to talk? Often there is a mismatch between what we need to do here and now (as expressed often by politicians) and what will be needed to be done for a desirable future. However, I still think that politicians must have their own role on how to be cooperative and seek solutions widely shared through compromise and negotiation, and should not be replaced by scientists (technicians) even though prominent and authoritative that have a completely different role and can have quite different and opposite views as well on what could be our desirable future. Einstein's quote by Ljubomir is for me revealing: "politics is more difficult than physics". He is completely right, I believe, and it is the acknowledgment that science cannot substitute politics.
My dear friends, when I was reading the contribution to this thread, I have got the idea to give something more on Einstein’s Politics!
"I’d like to close with a summary of Einstein's political views from Walter Isaacson. He writes,
“Einstein's instinct for unification was ingrained in his personality and reflected in his politics.
Just as he sought a unified theory in science that could govern the cosmos, so he sought one in
politics that could govern the planet, one that would overcome the anarchy of unfettered
nationalism through a world federalism based on universal principles.” (Isaacson 550) In one of
the final lines of the book Isaacson sums up Einstein's character in a single sentence: “He was a
loner with an intimate bond to humanity, a rebel who was suffused with reverence.” (Isaacson
551)
Thank you, dear Ljubomir. Our Planet needs the citizens (patriots) of the world.
You are right my dear @Irina. I like your contribution, yes we do need the PATRIOTS of the WORLD! Not every citizen is a patriot, but every patriot is a citizen! :)
Dear Ljubomir, participation of prominent scientists and professors in the advisory boards of the Government could be a smart action for the choice of the governmental program' s guidelines. However this program must be discussed and adopted publicly. Prominent scientists and professors should be more practitioners than theoreticians as they have to deal with real and pragmatic problems of their citizens.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education