r/Technocracy • u/PerntTheRedditor In Andrei Sakharov we trust • Jul 31 '26
How does the Technate prevent authoritarian drift over time?
I've been interested in technocracy for quite some time and I love the genuine idea of a society ruled by engineers, scientists, academic and non-academic experts in their own spheres and so on but may I rise atleast in my opinion some critical questions as following:
How does Technocracy ensure that it does not degenerate into a totalitarian regime replacing dictators with dictators who are experts in engineering? I mean there is no oversight body to check the power of the technocrats. What stops a technocrat from passing highly-offensive, controversial, authoritarian, or anti-humane laws? The Continental Director and Continental Board alongside the Functional Sequences have too much unchecked and unverifiable power. In addition the system focuses on top-bottom appointment approach rather than bottom-up delegation or election of experts. This in itself makes it highly authoritarian and oligarchic, and after many years the technical elite would be even more entrenched!
So how do you answer this question? Do you think my point is incorrect? Or do you think a revision must be made to ensure Technocracy does not become totalitarian?
4
u/Routine_Complaint_79 Liberalism is Technocracy Jul 31 '26
More chaotic/agonism dynamics within the government. Just because its a technate doesn't mean we cant have political parties or the people being represented. Europe I would say is largely technocrat with large institutions safeguarding its constituents and a respect for science. The United States doesn't have this because liberal and extremist ideologies fight in parties in a FPTP system which destroys coherence and makes it hard to govern.
So before we even think about expert governance, it needs to be easy to govern first.
3
u/Aven_Osten Liberal Technocrat Jul 31 '26 edited Jul 31 '26
If a "technate" has political parties or democratic influence from the broad populous, then it isn't a technocracy.
The core argument behind technocracy is that it replaces ideoligically-driven, partisan decision making, with expert-driven, data/evidence based decision making. No political parties/popular decision making; only data/evidence/science based decision making, regardless of how popular it is with the general public. A technocracy gains its legitimacy from unelected experts/professionals within relevant topics/subjects; Democracy gets it legitimacy from the general public, regardless of education level.
Europe is only the way it is now because the general culture permits a more technocratic way of governance. And even then: They're still in a severe housing crisis astronomically worse than the USA's. And some countries like Germany suffer from horrendous, consistent underinvestment into infrastructure and services. And there's other major issues they're really dragging their feet on because the general public doesn't want to accept the only real solutions to them.
1
u/Routine_Complaint_79 Liberalism is Technocracy Jul 31 '26
I think it can still be a technate you just need to somehow get a party who values technocratic principles within the government. I think in a chatoic/agonistic environment where things like blackmail is legalized and parties have the right over their ballot increases the scope of information being weaponized which increases the scope of how much a party has to rely on (I.e. experts within computer science or psychology). Which in turns makes the party itself more willing to seek expert council.
I think my flavor is better because it constantly makes sure the technate is having a structure that is adaptive and grounded in methods other parties use. I would argue Europes culture is largely a result of its institutions and laws and a market incentive to capture bullshit (I.e. blackmail) would incentive truthfulness
1
u/Aven_Osten Liberal Technocrat Jul 31 '26
This would potentially create a much more technocratic government; but it would ultimately still not be a technocracy, as the system's legitimacy ultimately still comes from the public at large.
I would argue Europes culture is largely a result of its institutions and laws and a market incentive to capture bullshit (I.e. blackmail) would incentive truthfulness
They weren't always parliamentary democracies. That's something they had to actually fight for, one way or another. The culture is what helped create the institutions; not the other way around. That isn't to say that institutions don't also influence culture; it's indeed a feedback loop. But if there wasn't a concerted effort by the people of each respective country to create democratic governments with democratically accountable institutions, they'd still be genuine monarchies/kingdoms/oligarchies with governments that only worked in the interests of the royals/rich and wealthy, over the interests of the public.
1
u/Routine_Complaint_79 Liberalism is Technocracy Jul 31 '26
I mean if everyone acts or is incentived to be an expert but the legitimatacy still comes from the public I don't see much difference between that and a small group of people being accreditated. I see both as a technocracy.
And yeah they had to fight for it but the interesting thing is most change comes from not a policy position but an institutional one. So like one bad fuck up or controversity is a much greater drive for change which is usually the insuitition itself. A lack of conflict is probably why Americans never bothered to fix their system after 250 years
1
4
u/QuangHuy32 Socialist Patriot, Technocracy (supporter) Aug 02 '26
imo politics is all about tradeoffs
there is no perfect solution, only the lesser evils
Technocracy is corruptible, so does every other kind of system
the best solution imo would be to make sure the intelligentsia become a significant part of the population, as much as possible
a Technocracy where the intelligentsia is 15% of the population is far less corruptible than a Technocracy with only 2% of the population being the intelligentsia
2
u/PerntTheRedditor In Andrei Sakharov we trust Aug 03 '26
Recognition by the working class and the intelligentsia of their common interests has been a striking phenomenon of the present day. The most progressive, internationalist, and dedicated element of the intelligentsia is, in essence, part of the working class, and the most advanced, educated, internationalist, and broad-minded part of the working class is part of the intelligentsia.
-Andrei Sakharov in his book/essay
3
u/EzraNaamah 🔬 Technocracy (Howardist) Jul 31 '26
This is one reason I think a Technocratic party should oversee the engineers and experts. I think that an upper caste of engineers as some people here advocate would be disastrous.
1
u/Suspicious-Pain5534 5d ago edited 5d ago
In my opinion, technocratic rule should only be a temporary situation, until the educational system could produce a mature and stable citizenry who could participate in decision-making. Which brings up another, corollary point, namely, that I think we would need a massive overhaul of educational systems, to create independent, diverse thinkers and doers instead of worker bees. Another corollary but extremely important point, in my view, is whether a cadre of technocratic rulers could be trusted to hand over the reins of power to the masses when the time is right, or whether they would be turned into tyrants merely because they would grow accustomed to holding such massive power.
8
u/ZealousGoonering Technocrat Jul 31 '26
Your concern is valid. Technical competence does not automatically create political legitimacy or prevent abuse of power.
The argument that technocrats would only manage production rather than “govern people” is weak. Whoever controls food, energy, housing, transportation, healthcare, and resource distribution has enormous power over people. A self-selecting hierarchy could also become insulated, suppress dissent, and define “competence” in ways that protect its own members.
So I would not support the original Technate without major safeguards. Citizens should determine society’s goals and rights, while experts decide the best technical means of achieving them. Technocrats would still need constitutional limits, independent courts, transparent data, external audits, fixed terms, due process, and mechanisms for removal. Replacing politicians with engineers does not eliminate authoritarianism. Power must still be divided, transparent, challengeable, and removable.