The Colby Echo

Issue date: 3/2/07 Section: Opinions

Our political system is ostensibly based on the idea that everyone is equal, that everyone should have an equal hand in guiding the sociopolitical fate of a city/state/country.

Does anyone really believe this?

I don't follow politics well enough to have a favorite 2008 candidate, but most Echo readers probably do. Whether you favor Obama, McCain or someone else, you're probably less interested in a majority voice than in seeing your pick win, because s/he knows better (than the opponent, than the opponent's supporters, than you). Some of you might be right. Certain people really do just know better, because they've put the time and effort into studying big ideas and big issues, and I have no problem saying that their voices should count for more than others.

Furthermore, we have a millennia-old literary legacy of god-kings, warrior-poets and Chosen Ones deciding the fates of nations and peoples. Even today our highest-profile storytelling focuses not on everyman (or everywoman) characters, but on extraordinary or unusual individuals-wizards, knights, swashbucklers, spies, Men of Steel, Caped Crusaders. I'd willingly bet that far more people are familiar with Superman, Zorro, and Skywalker than Elizabeth Bennett and Holden Caulfield. Why? It's not just age: everyone knows Achilles and Arthur, too (plus, Superman and Zorro came before Holden). I offer that it's because Superman, Achilles, and their ilk are portrayed as better than us in some important way: extraordinarily powerful, capable, intelligent, and/or virtuous compared to ordinary folk. We're okay with Zorro, Batman and James Bond breaking and entering, assaulting and battering, because they know things we don't, do things we can't, and serve goals we find honorable more effectively than we could.

In short, we trumpet in fiction what we often seem uneasy to admit out loud in reality: people are NOT equal. Some are simply more valuable to society than others-or at least make for more interesting stories that those others can enjoy and pass on, hopefully spurring attempts to match the heroes therein. On some level, we often resent our superiors, but on another we still want them around, because we trust them to be right where we're wrong or clueless. So (returning to politics) we elect representatives who seem to be better than us at certain things. But should the potentially wrong and clueless really be electing?

I once worked in an Army personnel office, and I read many officer evaluations. In the military meritocracy, promotion is determined by deed and by the commendations of superiors who have either shared your tasks and turf or worked extensively with those who have, rather than the opinions of those who aren't really familiar with your line of work. Makes sense to me. I honestly think a similar system could work for civilian society and government; a single executive, if desired, could be chosen by and from those of the highest multiply-held rank. The system itself might have to be agreed upon by the masses, yes, but once established could run itself, and the masses need not be silenced; they could still offer opinions (maybe like SGA), but wouldn't have official power they couldn't handle. Of course there's the chance of corruption and bureaucratic laziness, but no more than in a democracy as big and unwieldy as ours has become.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools