What is technocracy?

Rafał Stybliński

Technocracy is “the concept of a social system in which power would be held by technicians, experts, organizers, and managers of production” ^[1]https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technokracja_(polityka) . It has undoubted advantages, because the modern world is so complicated that the correct decisions can be made only by those who have enough knowledge and skills.

Marek Glazer notes that “technocracy seems a natural form of government in a technologically advanced society” ^[2]http://www.racjonalista.pl/forum.php/s,600792. This form of government ensures that the competence of those in power would be high.

It is worth noting the existence of the Technocratic Movement, an American social movement started in late 1918 and early 1919 that still exists today ^[3]https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruch_Technokratyczny. There is also a non-profit organization known as The Venus Project, which presents “a new socio-economic model using science and technology toward social improvement to achieve a sustainable civilization” ^[4]https://www.thevenusproject.com/

Singapore is often cited as an example of a technocratic country. Doug Hendrie points out that technocracy is deeply entrenched in Singapore ^[5]https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/in-praise-of-technocracy-why-australia-must-imitate-singapore. Government officials are expected to be technically minded, long-term goal oriented, and characterized by a utilitarian approach. Singapore’s success comes from its system of expert governance, focus on meritocratic talent and long-term thinking.

There is also the other side of the coin. Stanislaw Galkowski points out the dangers of technocracy in his article “Technocracy and demagogy”. ^[6]http://czasopisma.isppan.waw.pl/index.php/c/article/download/628/478/
Stanisław Gałkowski, Technokracja i demagogia, DOI: 10.35757/CIV.2010.12.09

He argues that this form of government works best where efficiency is the most important issue. However, when we are dealing with worldview choices, it becomes dangerous because technology and science are “axiologically blind” (that is, it does not itself address values).

Also, civic culture is not developed if people have to lock themselves into their narrow professional specialization, only to advise and decide in it.

It is possible that the rights of individuals to make decisions are taken away (it is itself a denial of freedom) because they are not experts. In other words, technocracy can lead to anti-democratic aspirations, as democracy allows people who are not experts to co-govern. It excludes citizens from public life.

According to Chrisopher Lasch, the modern elite of Western societies are alienated from the society in which they live.

Governments in which decisions are made only by experts and the role of democracy is collateral can lead to these experts being distant from ordinary citizens and failing to make decisions in accordance with their values and goals.

Finally, among the basic liberal beliefs is that “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Stanislaw Galkowski concludes his argument by stating that “technocratism, starting as an attempt to make life easier for citizens, can extremely easily turn into a justification for ruling over them,” which I can agree with.

Aldous Huxley’s vision of the undemocratic society that could emerge is also presented in his anti-utopia “Brave New World (“Brave New World”).

It would seem that technocracy and democracy are polar opposites. However, I believe that there is a chance to reconcile them, if the elements of technocracy are auxiliary to democracy as the supreme value.

This is also our goal, that the portal to be created will invite both the group of experts and the group of citizens to participate. It would be up to the experts to verify the facts and present them to the general public. They would also be able to create their own proposals for laws and give their opinion on existing proposals, clearly indicating their support or lack thereof, and presenting rational arguments. The decision, however, would belong to the public and would be expressed by voting.

Of particular note is our proposal to include ethicists as a special expert group. They would have the opportunity to draw attention to the ethical aspects of the proposed laws, and their voice would be clearly shown on the portal. Their goal would be to ensure, among other things, that fundamental and minority rights are respected.