Woke ideologies and the Decline of the Western Societies

The chances of meritocracy

After the assassination attempt against Donald Trump, the alternative media started criticising the hiring principles of the American Secret Service. During the extraction of Trump from the rally in Butler, female and male employees looked like they had their first day at the job and came through as dodgy. Although it may sound nice to have a target that 30% of the recruits would be females by 2030 at the Secret Service, as former director Kimberly Cheatle announced in 2022. She resigned after the congressional hearing on 22 July because she has been under intense fire for committing gross incompetence and having this hiring goal. It is because critics say what is trivial: the best bodyguards should be around the most important persons.

Practically, the critics argue for meritocracy. Nevertheless, the chances that meritocracy can be established are minimal. On the flip side of the coin, the chances that the emancipatory (woke) hiring principles might remain in place are higher. The problem with emancipatory hiring principles, as the footage of Trump’s extraction exemplified, is that they might undermine professionalism and can precipitate incompetence. Critics say that this might even lead to the collapse of Western societies.

The question of whether emancipatory hiring principles can lead to societal decline can be answered after we understand why this hiring trend could get momentum in Western societies.

The simple answer to why emancipatory selection processes could gain momentum is that they follow the logic of Western countries’ main historical selection processes. These can be characterized by favouritism, cronyism, and negative discrimination against everyone outside the ruling ethnicities. This selection process is a technique for distributing power and influence in a society.

Crucially, Western countries are understood as those that had colonies and were established in territories where the indigenous people still lived with them. Still, the indigenous people live in minority groups. These countries are still among the wealthiest.

For these countries, especially in the colonisation era, the organisation of local governments was highly significant. Those institutions were filled with jobs where only reliable and loyal people had to be employed. Typically, only people from the colonising nation were hired for these roles. This is the root of favouritism or discrimination.

In private corporates, trust and expected loyalty are also relevant. Therefore, in colonising countries, it seems natural that close family members and relatives are hired first, and then the jobs might be open for people within the circles of friendships. In private businesses, owing to competitive pressures, the circle of trust has a chance to be open for Indigenous people, too, but only after a significant time. This time might encompass two or three generations. And even when trust is laid into Indigenous people or migrants proportionally, they do not yet fill in the same number of jobs in any professions as the colonising ethnicities. It is true, especially because the loyal members of the employees cannot fall out easily from these employments. They are the ones that the leaders save by creating new jobs for them. These job security options are not available for Indigenous people or for those who do not belong to the original circle of trust.

In governmental jobs, the competitive pressure is much less relevant. Practically, it is possible that only people from the colonising nations can fulfil them.

The situation is not better in the mother countries either. There, people from other countries might want to establish new lives. However, they are perceived as migrants there; they are not colonisers, so they do not have power positions. What happens is that they fulfil low-paying jobs, ones that the individuals from the mother nation do not want to do. For example, in Germany, in the UK, and also in New Zealand, migrant workers play a significant role in services that are not regarded as prestigious jobs.

Distrust has roots, too. The colonisers perceive people from other nations as the ones who intend to steal their jobs. Those people who lost their employment and career prospects owing to the colonisers do not trust them either, for a reason.

Unfortunately, the gap between opportunities and incomes was (in some areas still is) present in another social relation, between sexes. Owing to the human societies, power relations are the ones that are regarded as most important, therefore, those who have physical power, mostly men, were valued more. They used to be the ones that could have political rights only.

No wonder why the first wave of feminism intended to achieve equal political rights for women, while the second wave of feminism aimed at realising equal pay for equal jobs.

Nevertheless, after the Second World War, the recognition of these social differences (the lack of equal opportunities and incomes) resulted in various international agreements to improve the rights of socially disadvantaged people. The United Nations adopted the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination in 1965, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1966, the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women in 1979. Alongside the adoption of these international legal documents, various aggregate statistics were published to illustrate social inequity: the disproportional incarceration rates between white people and people of other racial origins, the income gaps between various ethnicities and between males and females, the difference in life expectancy, etc.

However, during this wave of recognition of social inequity, the emancipatory politicians, the representatives of groups that were detrimentally affected by the colonizers’ selection processes, committed a mistake: they did not argue for meritocracy and equal social opportunities. They argued for equity in outcomes: on average, men and women should earn the same income during their lifetime; at various organisations, the number of Indigenous and former colonizer peoples should be proportionate, etc.

Arguing for social equity rather than for equal opportunities and meritocracy has two significant consequences. First, emancipatory politics left the problematic selection processes and techniques of distribution of power at places. Practically, the emancipatory selection processes are no different from the colonizers’ processes; they just included the principle of proportionality into the former selection criteria that were based mostly on loyalty. By leaving the colonizers’ technique in place, the social injustice will not improve! Second, the promotion of equity opens up the opportunity to select job applicants who are unfit for the roles. (The dramatic footage of the Trump assassination attempt grossly exemplified this.)

Unfortunately, the emancipatory politics and ideologies are coupled with a victimhood mentality. This means that even when an individual or politician receives good opportunities and fairness in society, they do not recognize this, and they demand even more. An example of this is the case of Lewis Hamilton, the Formula-1 driver. With the Mercedes team, he got all the attention as one of the most talented drivers should. He achieved six world championship titles with this team. Still, even after his seventh title, he wanted equity requirements in his financially lavish contracts. He wanted the Mercedes team to employ more engineers of colour. Maybe he was unsatisfied with the resources he got?! Honestly, I do not know why on earth he wanted this… Nevertheless, the example shows what nonsensical demands the victimhood mentality can create.

Another example is that of the New Zealand Prime Ministers. Since 1997, New Zealand has had 7 Prime Ministers, three of whom were females. During this 27-year-long period, New Zealand had 16 years when women were Prime Ministers. Still, in 2018, two of them, Helen Clark and Jacinda Ardern, were complaining that in Parliament, only 38% of the members were females. Their cases should have been proof that there were already equal opportunities for men and women in New Zealand. But, for them, with their victimhood mindsets, it could not be enough.

Because the emancipatory hiring processes do not differ from the historically established colonial hiring processes, it is challenging to establish meritocracy. Also, importantly, we need to admit that throughout history, meritocracy never existed. Even though the people who argue that the best person should be appointed for open roles have experienced significant positive discrimination during their careers, Here, I mention my own case first so the readers understand why I firmly believe in this. Although my case refers to Hungary, which is not part of Western societies, it is still relevant because I felt like I had lived in a society with fair treatment and meritorious selection processes.

During my studies and my early career years, I was a high achiever as a student and then as an economist. During my studies, the teachers noticed my talent, and after some successful examination periods, they started treating me as one of the best. What it meant was strange. On an occasion, I was not interested in a paper, and owing to my assignments, it was becoming likely that I could achieve only a B+. The coordinator was worried that her giving me a B+ might endanger my high achievements and asked me if it was good enough for me. It was then that I realized that the teachers already paved the way for my success. Later, similar events happened at workplaces. Even when I did not perform well, I was excused from underachievement.

In Western societies, those who argue for meritocracy were all, in a way, privileged to achieve what they could. They just did not pay attention and were not sensitive enough. In New Zealand, for example, the former National Party leader, Don Brash, often argues for meritocracy. Although he regards many moments as incredibly lucky in his life, as the title of his self-biography suggests (published in 2014), it was more than that. For example, in 1971, he was appointed to be the CEO of a newly established merchant bank, Broad Bank. He got the job after an informal meeting. It was only after that meeting that he went to a library to read about the term ‘merchant bank.’ So, in other words, he did not have industrial experience, and even after five years at the World Bank in Washington, he did not have executive experience either. But he was chosen for the role! And, of course, after work experience as a CEO at a merchant bank, he could have the opportunity to become the Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, too.

An international example of how meritocracy never existed in Western societies is Jordan Peterson. He became a university professor at the age of 36 before he even published a book! We can mention other historical examples, too. The former Prime Minister of England, Anthony Eden, was the husband of Winston Churchill’s niece, Clarissa Spencer-Churchill. When we argue for meritocracy in Western societies, first, it would be crucial to notice that it has never been the case, and the term “old boys club” has always been the founding principle in employment.

One may think that authoritarian societies, such as Russia or China, might have a more competitive job selection process. Even though the school exams are highly competitive, especially in China, ideological commitment is the decisive factor. Independent thinkers usually leave these countries because they cannot agree with the state’s policies. When I visited China, I could meet both corporate and governmental leaders. Both had a certain resentment towards every person that showed how hard it was to climb the corporate ladder for them. It was another proof of why independent thinkers cannot stand authoritarian regimes.

The woke hiring principles coupled with the victimhood mentality raised the demand for meritocracy, and we can agree that meritocracy is the way forward for Western societies. However, there is still a competition between colonial thinking and woke thinking. So, we need to look for good examples to learn how to establish meritorious selection processes. In authoritarian regimes, such as China or Russia, we cannot find good examples; meritocracy has never been relevant.

Therefore, we have a million-dollar question: Which country might be the first to pave the way for the principle of “best person for the job”?