Meritocracy

". . . the mission of all governments, monarchical, constitutional, or republican, is to protect and maintain by force the privileges of the classes in possession, the aristocracy, clergy and traders."
- Peter Kropotkin, Law and Authority [1886].

"Anarchy is a form of government or constitutions in which public and private consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties . . . The institutions of the police, preventative and repressive methods, officialdom, taxation etc., are reduced to a minimum . . . monarchy and intensive centralisation disappear, to be replaced by federal institutions and a pattern of life based upon the commune."
- Pierre Joseph Proudon, Selected Writings.

ACCORDING to The Concise Oxford Dictionary, meritocracy is defined as “government by persons selected according to merit”. In other words, meritocracy may be described as a system in which only those most suited to the task of leadership have a recognised authority. However, unlike the present democratic system this particular method of authority is not enshrined in the contractual laws of mankind but in the irrevocable laws of nature.

By seeking to obscure the inherent differences between individuals, groups and races through a systematic programme of ‘egalitarianism’ and the inordinate championing of the weak, democracy itself represents a highly detrimental threat to the normal and healthy development of people throughout the world. Furthermore, it is nothing other than the disorderly rule of the common mob and is a major hindrance to the abilities of the most able. In the real world, people are fundamentally different and have natural stations in life. Although liberalism is chiefly responsible for attempting to force the most able members of society to live, work and study side by side with those of a lesser ability and lower horizons, Capitalism is also an impediment to the natural order of humankind through the imposition of its parasitical class structure. So whilst on the one hand we are told to accept that the most anti-social elements are our brothers and sisters, on the other many of us are unable to rise to our natural level due to the greed and repression of the pseudo-aristocratic ruling class. In an attempt to decipher the complex nature of our personalities, some have argued that human development is shaped purely by the manner and the environment in which we are raised, contesting that - given the opportunity of an ‘identical’ upbringing - the road sweeper is capable of rising to the intellectual level of the scientist or the philosopher. Whilst this may be true in some cases, especially given the more favourable educational advantages conferred on the sons and daughters of the ruling Establishment, it remains a fact that individual human development is overwhelmingly determined by genetics. This is the single most important biological characteristic of any human being and, whilst the Nature vs. Nurture debate is sure to rage on for many years to come, when all is said and done individual ability has far more to do with racial origins than social circumstances. That said, under Capitalism a parasitical minority is permitted to prosper at the expense of those whom - in a more natural society - would be in charge of their own destinies and not held subject to the professional moneylenders by the paid mercenaries of the police and armed services. So whilst the Left seeks to obscure the healthy spirit of natural human endeavour and confine us all to the lowest possible level, the Right seeks to prevent us from becoming a threat to the bacterial gangsters who, through force of arms, reserve the highest echelons for themselves.

Government in a natural sense, therefore, would involve the participation of the most able and not representation by the purely treacherous and self-seeking. In the past, some of us in National-Anarchist circles have campaigned for a meritocratic form of government known as Popular Rule, a system chiefly espoused by Muammar al-Qathafi in The Green Book (Tripoli, 1977). Under this arrangement, the will of the people is expressed through a series of street, area and regional councils, culminating in a national committee of delegates. However, given that society will eventually fragment in accordance with the gradual demise of Capitalism it would be ludicrous to suppose that we could ever hope to establish any kind of administrative system on a national scale. But this is not the only reason for our change of tact. On the contrary, when we come to form our own pockets of resistance in line with our National-Anarchist objectives, we will have absolutely no intention of living amongst or sharing power with those who do not share our vision. Power is a means to an end, and, by conferring it upon the desensitised masses - most of whom are riddled with materialism and only out for themselves anyway - we would be throwing pearls before swine. Our communities will be maintained by and for National-Anarchists, so, given that Popular Rule is a decidedly meritocratic system, it will be reserved for those who have earnt it. Unlike the present democratic system, which raises the voice of the uninformed majority above that of truth, commonsense and justice, within our communities issues contrary to the Natural Order such as abortion and homosexuality will be non-negotiable. If those outside of our boundaries wish to live by such precepts, then so be it. On the other hand, if at any time such people become a threat to the internal stability of our own areas they will be dealt with accordingly. As far as contact between those areas populated by National-Anarchists is concerned, we are in support of a federal union of independently maintained areas which - if necessary - can work together in either a defensive or offensive capacity.

But Popular Rule will not represent a form of government in the current sense of the word. Our variant of Popular Rule will be entirely stateless and more akin to Traditional Anarchy than that currently being propagated in countries like Libya and others. In fact as Richard Hunt has observed, the overall trend in society is one of decentralisation and as a result small communities have no need for governmental structures because, after all, “the specific object of government was to take from the many and give to the few.” [To End Poverty: The Starvation of the Periphery By the Core, Oxford, 1997]. Similarly, John Pfeiffer [The Emergence of Man, Harper Row, 1972] has noted that a natural, organic society has no need for policing practices until the population has exceeded more than 500 persons. This is because 500 is considered to be the maximum number of people that any one person could possibly know. So, as Richard Hunt explains, although our society would inevitably “have a natural peck order . . . those at the top could not demand obedience of the others.” [The Natural Society: A Basis for Green Anarchism, Oxford, 1994]. Obedience to an ideal, certainly, but not to a dictatorial overlord as has been the case up to now. When we talk of meritocratic leadership, therefore, we are referring to self-rule by an elite: in this case, due to its diminutive size the localised community. Given that those who are most pragmatic will have forged the best communities, it logically follows, therefore, that by this time the most pragmatic beings will have joined with and sought to live amongst those of a similar type. And without a statist institution or an accompanying police force to control or monitor the inhabitants of such communities, of course, it would be possible to achieve freedom in the truest sense.