Read on Twitter
Thread on Avani Bansal’s piece in the Wire calling for epistocracy in India in the context of covid response & its failures. Some basic issues (more extended critique to follow shortly) https://thewire.in/politics/india-democracy-expertise-epistocracy-covid-19 (1/14)
Interestingly, the author focuses on the legislature, recommending educational qualifications for MPs (via article 84c). But this assumes that competent legislators would facilitate better decision-making. There are two grounds on which this assumption can be questioned (2/14)
(i) The anti-defection law essentially transfers decision-making power away from parliament to party executives. Not clear that ‘better’ legislators would mean better policy https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13698230.2018.1479813 (3/14)
(ii) In the context of the covid response, with which the author is concerned, decision-making is largely being exercised by the executive, bypassing even the minimal legislative checks that ordinarily exist https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2020/04/16/coronavirus-and-the-constitution-xviii-models-of-accountability/ (4/14)
Of course, neither (i) nor (ii) is ideal. But they are real background conditions. Given the realist orientation of the epistocratic approach, they cannot be idealised away (5/14)
Okay, perhaps educational qualifications for legislators will ensure that ministers are adequately qualified (because ministers are also MPs). But that won’t help. For eg, Amit Shah holds a BSc. Modi has a pgt degree in ENTIRE political science (6/14)
The article focuses on individual competence among legislators, assuming this would facilitate better policy-making. But intelligence of a collective is more than the sum of its parts. Lots of smart individuals may still fail to create good policy
https://bit.ly/3eRgnuw (7/14)
https://bit.ly/3eRgnuw (7/14)
Esp when the grounds of their ‘smartness’ correlate with certain blind spots. Likely blind spots from aspects correlated with access to greater education; for eg caste. This was an important factor advanced against edu quals in the Rajbala v Haryana https://www.huffingtonpost.in/udit-bhatia/how-haryana-and-the-supre_b_8779110.html (8/14)
Education is unequally distributed. An edu qual will disproportionately impact disadvantaged groups. Under-representation of most disadv in already marginalised groups likely to worsen rather than improve policy-making
(9/14)
(9/14)
As @annefabpeter reminds us, even in times like these, imp to resist authoritarian tendencies. We can only monitor whether expert advice is working if citizens can be heard. https://warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/knowledgecentre/society/philosophy/the_return_of_experts/ (10/14)
Moreover, scientific expertise can only take us so far. There are important value-laden questions at stake in the covid response (eg, how to address trade-offs re: deaths lost to the virus vs quality of life impact from lockdown) https://bit.ly/3eORdfQ (11/14)
Ultimately, fatal flaw with this article lies in how it conceptualises its baseline for comparison. Arguably, flaws in Modi gov’s response to covid lie not only in failure to listen to independent experts but failure to consult important stakeholders (12/14)
Migrant & informal sector workers not adequately consulted about preparedness for lockdown; impact of lockdown & mitigation strategies. This was a failure of inclusion- not just of experts but also key constituencies affected by covid policies https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/coronavirus-india-lockdown-amartya-sen-economy-migrants-6352132/ (13/14)
This is democracy done shabbily. Comparing this with epistocracy is to make one’s job too easy. Modi’s India is hardly a good model for democratic governance. This is an unfair comparison http://bostonreview.net/politics/niko-kolodny-how-people-vote (14/14)
