We live in a world where there is a rapid advancement in AI, and problems like climate change also persist. The sudden outbreak of a pandemic, as we witnessed in 2020, added to the already present economic instability all over the world. The rise of such unpredictable events leads us to one solution: perhaps field specialists can better help in policymaking instead of politically elected leaders. The problems we face today in this world are far too complex to be solved by ordinary politicians, and technocratic rule might be a need of the hour. But the real question is whether technocrats will really understand the people or whether it will just end up being elite rule.
Technocracy is a form of government where the decision-making powers are vested with technocrats (field experts). When experts rule, they are not there to gain public support; rather, they focus on providing long-term solutions to problems based on data and individual specifications. Technocracy basically encourages competence over popularity among the masses. For example, during COVID-19, scientific advisory panels were formed to handle the situation using expert advice.
There are many reasons why one would support technocracy. Firstly, there are many complex and challenging situations which an ordinary politician cannot even comprehend; they require a field expert who can offer a feasible and timely solution. The implications of climate change and its effect in the long term can only be foreseen and solved by a technocrat rather than by a politician. Secondly, technocrats are not there to gain the popular vote or to satisfy the general public, so they aim for long-term plans rather than short-term solutions. A politician, on the other hand, has to gain votes for the next election and thus needs to provide short-term benefits to gain votes. Thirdly, technocrats do not work on feelings or emotions; rather, they work on stats and data to provide efficient solutions.
This takes us to the conflict between expertise and democracy. Democracy does not always require perfectly drafted policies; rather, it is based on representation and public participation. The public can reject technocratic policies as well, which will lead to a crisis, because the policies would be there, but no one to follow them. For example, if the technocrats recommend AI restrictions or impose a tax for the climate, the general public might not be able to understand the reasoning and refuse to adopt them. A democratic rule cannot go sideways with a technocratic one.
A technocratic rule is likely to end up as an elite echo chamber. An elite echo chamber is a closed system where a single group reinforces its narrow ideas on everyone else, restricting itself from understanding others. Now, in a technocratic rule, the technocrats won’t care for the masses and will become isolated from the common man’s needs and desires. This can lead to policies that might look great on paper but are practically inefficient for the people. Experts will certainly end up believing that a layman can never understand governance, and such a belief will result in a form of elitism instead of governance. An incompetent politician can be voted out, but experts often come unselected based on their relative experience in the field, so there is really no mechanism to throw them away. Thus, there is no accountability in such a system.
A middle ground can still be reached, in my opinion. Even in our current system, the Senate of Pakistan reserves 17 seats for technocrats. We could increase technocrat seats; they would advise or propose a bill, but it would need to pass the National Assembly to become law. So, this process will include expert advice as well as the consent of public representatives. A sustainable government requires both public trust and effective problem-solving.
As long as the general public is not educated and informed enough to choose well-educated leaders, a system that includes both is necessary. Technocracy offers expertise and efficiency. On the other hand, democracy is the will of the people. The focus shouldn’t be on choosing a single form of government; rather, the focus should be on having better expert policies without silencing the needs of the people.