What is an epistocracy and should it replace democracy?

Epistocracy is a system of governance first proposed by Plato within his famed work the 'Republic. But what exactly is this system of governance and how does it differ from democracy? Unlike democracy, in which the majority of the population have an equal vote on who should lead, an epistocracy is a should-be state which is lead by 'experts', who themselves are not voted in by the general population.

Plato specifies that the experts who would make laws and decisions under an epistocracy  should simply be philosophers, as opposed to the career politicians we largely have today. This is because they would have a would have a valid reason to rule as they have been ‘trained’ in ‘the good’ and will project ‘the good’ onto their decisions.Thus as such seemingly if philosophers are experts in good they will make good laws more often than those those who have an average understanding of what is good and as such what laws would be good for the general populace. Secondly, philosophers are righteous in character as their “desire” for wisdom lessens desire for anything else, such as monetary bribes, which would prohibit corruption as well as general bias. Therefore, Plato argues philosophers have a valid reason to assume authority as their knowledge of ‘the good’ would produce beneficial commands for the populace.

However, this is simply not enough to claim that an epistocracy led by philosophers would be preferable to a democracy. Firstly, a philosopher is not free of corruption simply because they desire wisdom, as philosophers are human and could be subject to blackmail, which could result in them commanding laws that could cause harm in order to prevent a scandal or harm befalling them. As such there is not sufficient enough reason to believe that just because they have desire for wisdom they will be less corrupt than any other politician in current government. Similarly, although a philosopher is well-versed in goodness, they are subject to incorrect reasoning when applying the good in certain contexts. A philosopher’s narrow experiences and precise knowledge of what is good, having mainly learned from certain books and their current life experience, could cause them to reason wrongly. For example, they would be unable to command what aligns with good during a pandemic due to a lack of medical knowledge or experience in dealing with a crisis. This indicates then that a philosopher may not be any better than many politicians voted in via a democracy when it comes to many issues.  

Perhaps this can be resolved by rearranging Plato view of an epistocracy, that is still having a state ruled by experts but not just simply philosophers. That is substituting the philosopher for a council of experts who have great knowledge in a variety of fields, such a group of leading scientists, economists, environmentalists and philosophers all making decisions together. A system of expert sovereigns is preferable to that of the philosopher, as given their broader expertise they are more likely to command what is best for the populace. Indeed, an epidemiologist would command what is best for the populace during a pandemic, whilst a philosopher and economist can work together to produce laws that will be good for in need without the country's economy collapsing. The issue then is how does one decide upon which experts get to lead. Indeed we cannot simply allow every expert in every relevant field to lead otherwise decisions would never be made and the council could therefore never pass necessary laws. Therefore, those in favour of an epistocracy often propose a test system to decide upon the experts needed for rule. A “test” system could provide assurance that experts are appropriate for a sovereign position. Firstly, a trial could assure an expert would not be manipulated, through blackmail or “fear” which would lead them to command against the good of the populace and their own expertise. Secondly, a trial could test an expert’s reasoning to confirm that they would largely command in line with what is good for the majority of the population. Indeed,  an issue with a random expert being appointed as a member of the governing council is that their expertise could be biased due to the higher institutions and countries they originate from. A test would assure that if, for example, an expert originates from a capitalist country, but socialist policies would be better for a populace that they would not be so blinded by their own backgrounds to command against what is truly good. Therefore, on this level it seems that an epistorcacy would work and work better than a democracy. As instead of a country being governed by individuals voted for out of a group of people who largely only know how to be politicians, the country will be governed by experts from multiple fields who will be able to sufficiently reason and command what is exactly best for the general populace in any given situation. 

However, this test which is crucial to finding the right experts for the job of governing, rather than experts who may command laws which harm the general populace due to the biases or lack of ability to reason, is inherently flawed. A test would only confirm that a potential sovereign’s reasoning, lack of bias and knowledge is sufficient by the test-makers standard. This, therefore, would not confirm that the sovereign would mostly command in line with what is best for the populace as the test-maker could be corrupt or have insufficient knowledge to truly test the experts. Indeed, an imperfect test-maker is unavoidable as there is no real means for a perfect test-maker to be appointed. Firstly, one cannot trial the test-maker because then the question becomes who will compose the test-maker test and how too will that be decided. Furthermore, a test-maker cannot be decided upon by public vote without dismantling epistocracy. A vote for a test-maker would be an important political decision as they decide the sovereign, yet this denies the point of strict epistocracy which removes important decision-making from the uninformed populace and places it in the hands of experts only. Therefore, a test system is intrinsically flawed. If a test cannot assure that experts would be appointed who frequently command what is good for the populace, then the lure of the epistocrarcy is defeated. As indeed if we cannot assure that the right experts are appointed, those who through their expertise will largely only command what is good for the population, then we cannot assure that such an epistocracy would be better for the population than democracy. Indeed, if a corrupt and bias council of experts are instead appointed they may in fact produce laws which are far worse for a populace than elected officials. As such there seems no reason to replace democracy with epistocracy as we cannot guarantee that the right experts are appointed and as such that the laws commanded will be any better for a population than the laws produced under democracy.