Epistocracy is a form of government that distributes political power based on merit. It is promoted by Georgetown Professor Jason Brennan in his book Against Democracy, where he asserts we should reconsider the value of democracy and replace or supplement democracy with some form of epistocracy instead.¹ Democracy is an imperfect government system, but still regarded as the best government form we could implement. In the words of Winston Churchill, “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.”² Government is a tool in society used to protect the rights of its citizens and promote justice; Brennan argues we should at least consider epistocracy as a potentially more effective solution in this manner.³ His well-reasoned arguments beg the question: Should we fear epistocracy less than democracy? I argue no, indeed, we should fear epistocracy more than democracy, because epistocracy both inherently violates a government’s Social Contract with its citizens and is too easily corrupted.

Brennan most convincingly advocates for epistocracy on the basis of instrumentalism; he argues we ought to value government for its value in being the best way to promote justice.⁴ I will explain how, while Brennan’s argument is compelling, he makes a crucial mistake in his definition of instrumentalism that proves epistocracy would fail in its instrumental duties to a greater degree than democracy does. Brennan further would counter this by asserting that while democracy is the best government type we currently have, we should at least test epistocracy, at a small scale if need be, to see if it is more adept at promoting justice.⁵ I argue, however, we should avoid even testing it, as epistocracy is inherently a form of government susceptible to corruption and thus would be too dangerous to even attempt its implementation in our imperfect world.

Epistocracy Inherently Violates the Social Contract
Brennan believes there are two methods by which to evaluate democracy: instrumentalism and proceduralism.⁶ An instrumental view of democracy is one that values democracy solely for its functionality; i.e., democracy’s ability to promote justice better than any alternative form of government. Proceduralism, however, asserts there is intrinsic value in democracy. A proceduralist believes equal suffrage is a good in itself, not just a means to an end. Brennan argues democracy should be valued only insofar as it is instrumentally useful; if another form of government is more effective in promoting justice, he believes we should pursue that other government.⁷ This is the base he lays to argue for epistocracy, a form of government he believes would be far more effective in fulfilling governmental roles. Brennan believes democracy’s value is a mix of the two, although he more heavily stresses the importance of democracy’s instrumental role.⁸ He believes government is nothing more than a tool to achieve justice, and democracy is our imperfect hammer, albeit the best hammer we have found so far.⁹

Although I agree with Brennan that government is only useful insofar as it fulfills its duties and thus an instrumental view is essential in evaluating the value of democracy, Brennan falters in his evaluation of the instrumental value of democracy. Brennan fails to acknowledge a key component of a government’s instrumental value; a government’s functionality rests on its ability to uphold its end of the Social Contract. The Social Contract, a principle of government legitimacy best articulated by esteemed philosopher John Locke, states: “men being… by Nature, all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this Estate and subjected to the Political Power of another without his own Consent. The only way whereby anyone divests himself of his Natural Liberty, and puts on the bonds of Civil Society is by agreeing with other Men to join and unite into a Community.”¹⁰ The people must consent to sacrifice some of their rights in order to receive protection for other rights. A government’s legitimacy stems from the consent of the governed. If citizens do not offer this consent through political participation, they cannot morally be subjected to the laws imposed by this government.¹¹ This is not to say a citizen can break any law they disagree with, but rather, as noted by Britannica author Brian Duignan: “there can be no subjection to power without consent—though once political society has been founded, citizens are obligated to accept the decisions of a majority of their number.”¹² Citizens must offer their consent to be governed through political participation; once they offer this consent, they must abide by laws implemented by the government, being exempt only when the government breaks the social contract and violates citizens’ fundamental rights.

One of Brennan’s most compelling arguments he would counter with here is that of the antiauthority tenet. Brennan argues that even if people don’t believe a superiority in ability to discern truth qualifies some people more than others to make competent political decisions, they at least should acknowledge that some people’s foolishness with regard to politics should disqualify them from voting and potentially imposing foolish or even harmful policies on fellow innocent citizens.¹³ He uses an example of a plumber to show there are some fields in which others obtain superior knowledge to ours, and we would be better off trusting the care of our pipes (or, in the case of politics, our rights) to them. I argue that each person must first choose to hire the plumber. This may mean the plumber gets bad business and is forced out of the market, if there are enough fools not to accept him; but if he is truly qualified, we can trust the vast majority of people to, if they don’t have much plumbing knowledge themselves, identify who the best plumber is to hire. Bad plumbers will get worked out of the market, and good plumbers will likely find success. Even though many people in the United States are not educated in politics, they generally are able to discern who will best represent them in the political field; good politicians will more often than not find success, and bad ones will typically be identified and dropped. So yes, while some people are foolish and don’t have a great knowledge of politics, their political rights should not be stripped away in the name of protecting the safety of their fellow citizens; the hard working Vulcans (Brennan’s term for the logical, wise members of society) who run for office will find success if they truly are as talented at their job as Brennan thinks they’ll be.¹⁴ If they really know what they are doing, they will win the favor of the political market, including all its Hobbits (Brennan’s term for apathetic, disinterested citizens) and Hooligans (Brennan’s term for emotional, prejudiced citizens).¹⁵

Epistocracy is Too Easily Corrupted To Be Successful
Brennan further argues that epistocracy may be better than democracy, so we ought to at least try implementing it, even if only on a small scale at first. This is a dangerous idea; epistocracy is indeed a form of government that will likely work more efficiently than democracy, and by his plan, we would thus scale up after its initial success. I fear any implementation, which may very likely lead to a great small-scale success, would blind us to the natural faults of epistocracy and lead us down a slippery slope to implement this easily corrupted form of government.

Brennan acknowledges the unfair discrimination many groups of people faced in the past when denied equal suffrage, appreciating the long struggle for African Americans and women to join the United States’ political sphere.¹⁶ He responds, however, by asserting they were denied suffrage for the wrong reasons, and his idea of distinguishing between those who deserve and don’t deserve suffrage is based solely on competence. He anticipates the obvious objection that there are people today still denied equal access to opportunity; this could create an unfair representation of citizens in government, likely being skewed to the wealthiest or most advantaged members of society, with little knowledge of how others live. He refutes this argument on the grounds that the solution would therefore be to promote educational equality, not to continue allowing universal suffrage.¹⁷ This is a poor assertion, underestimating the world’s ability to solve these issues; over the last two and a half centuries, the US still has not achieved equal opportunity for all. Groups who have been discriminated against in terms of suffrage vary across history, and we likely will never live in a perfectly just world. We thus cannot put trust in any system easily susceptible to corruption. Just as socialism failed historically because it never could truly be implemented in its full ideal in our imperfect world, neither can epistocracy ever be justly implemented in our imperfect world.

Ben Bayer, a writer, fellow and director at the Ayn Rand Institute, acknowledges the common claim that the USSR never truly implemented socialism; Bayer then admonishes the idea that if tried again and with greater commitment to the original ideal, we would achieve better results.¹⁸ Lenin’s socialism failed when power fell to Stalin, who massacred people with his KGB; Mao’s socialism failed when he gained full power and murdered millions. Socialism has failed so many times historically because it is a form of government too susceptible to corruption for it to ever be truly successfully implemented.¹⁹ Epistocracy is the same; its nature shuts out entire swaths of civilian voices and allows others to rise to power under the premise that they are superior in the realm of politics. As historian Lord Acton once famously said, “power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”²⁰ Even if the Vulcans who are given power are superior in politics to their fellow citizens, this sense of superiority will corrupt them. While Brennan does not suggest giving all our rights to a wise king as Plato did, he proposes we raise a certain group of people over another and give them power over everyone’s rights. This is a dangerous game. Regardless of how uneducated citizens are, they are entitled to have grievances about government and government policy; they often know more than the educated about what does and doesn’t work in their society at the basic level than those in power do. If they can have no political power behind these grievances, the grievances are, in the words of A.D. Lindsay, “apt to be neglected.”²¹

Conclusion
An imperfect world yields only imperfect forms of government. Brennan is correct in that we must search for a government form simply the best at promoting justice, but epistocracy is not that government. Epistocracy, from its very roots, violates the Social Contract in not acquiring the consent of the governed from all the governed, and it is a government form that can never be justly implemented in an unjust world. Given that we live in an unjust world, epistocracy is a danger to society, and we ought to fear it far more than democracy.

N o t e s

1. Jason Brennan, 2016, Against Democracy, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016).
2. Peter Millett, 2014, “The Worst Form of Government | Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office Blogs,” Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, March 5, 2014, https://blogs.fcdo.gov.uk/petermillett/2014/03/05/the-worst-form-of-government/.
3. Brennan, Against Democracy.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. John Locke, 1689, The Second Treatise of Government.
11. Ibid.
12. Brian Duignan, 2023, “The Social Contract in Rousseau,” Encyclopedia Britannica, 2023, https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-contract/The-social-contract-in-Rousseau.
13. Brennan, Against Democracy.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Ben Bayer, 2020, “The Dishonesty of ‘Real Socialism Has Never Been Tried,’” New Ideal - Reason | Individualism | Capitalism, August 19, 2020, https://newideal.aynrand.org/the-dishonesty-of-real-socialism-has-never-been-tried/.
19. See Suzanne McGee, 2022, “How the KGB Silenced Dissent during the Soviet Era | HISTORY,” HISTORY, March 29, 2022, https://www.history.com/articles/kgb-soviet-russia-secret-police. See also, Ian Johnson, 2016, “China’s Memory Manipulators | Ian Johnson,” The Guardian, The Guardian. June 8, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/08/chinas-memory-manipulators.
20. Acton Institute, 2022 “Lord Acton Quote Archive,” Acton Institute, Acton Institute, 2022, https://www.acton.org/research/lord-acton-quote-archive.
21. Alexander Dunlop Lindsay, 1971, The Essentials of Democracy.