Basically the view that:
- People are grossly underqualified at identifying what makes a leader good versus great in a capabilities sense - who is more effective at reaching goals. They can at best weakly identify bad leaders
- People are may also be underqualified at identifying at what leader's goals are good or bad in a moral sense, but theyre lot more effective at identifying this than identifying competence
- You end up with incompetent elected leaders
- Real power is concentrated in bureaucratic structures that are somewhat meritocratic and somewhat competent by virtue of their meritocratic selection
- All this is a good thing because:
- it prevents the more meritocratic branches of government from descending into their own autocracy - the elected leader acts as a scapegoat in the public limelight and can override or atleast challenge any strongly autocratic decisions attempted by the meritocracy.
- It still gives a lot of power to the meritocratic branches to govern well if they want to. Averaging everything out, meritocratic structures select for more competent people, so this is good.
- Electing incompetent leaders ensures the leaders themselves won't be competent at building their own autocratic power if they want to.
Can I find any reading material on such views?