Which 'merit' has the best 'merit'

Merit-based systems, or meritocracy, as such systems are termed, is the model most commonly followed in progressive societies. Meritocracy means deploying people, and taking decisions, on basis of merits. Pakistan is probably one of more vivid examples of what happens when factors other than merit begin to 'merit' more importance.
There is a treasure trove of examples of corrupt and deceitful episodes in Pakistan's history, which are the result of factors other than merit, being accorded more 'merit'. There are episodes which will make you laugh, many will leave you dumbstruck, while some, like the Mansoor Ejaz affair, are frightening pointers to where we are headed, or being led to. Almost all will leave you deeply saddened.
However, a merit-based system, or meritocracy, is not free of inconsistencies. When it comes to the race on merit, for success in life, the starting points for the runners are unequal. In an underdeveloped country like Pakistan, the starting point in the race for the multitudes, or the poor and the deprived, is far behind the line-up for the better off, while the privileged few lineup far ahead of both. The unequal starting points are also true for developed countries, but these are less unequal.
The other thing about merit is that there is no clear-cut way to establish which 'merit' has the best 'merit' or, if 'standards' are used, which 'standard' is the best 'standard'. While this is not reason enough to preclude merit-based deployments and decisions, it makes it easy for our rulers to claim that appointments made by them, or decisions taken, are on 'merit', when 'merit' for them is only how well an appointee, or a decision, will serve their personal and political interests. The country's history is brimming with examples of this.
In meritocracy, the unequal lineup of runners in the merit race is result of 'non-merit' factors, which mock it. In their paper on meritocracy', Professors Stephen G. McNamee and Robert K. Miller of University of North Carolina, state that the combined effect of 'non-merit' factors, such as poverty, unequal education opportunities, social and cultural advantages and several others, 'suppress, neutralise, or even negate the effects of 'merit' and create barriers to individual mobility'.
The 'non-merit' factors, such as poverty and education, to pick just two, are particularly relevant in inequitable and exploitive societies such as Pakistan. Poverty in Pakistan is rampant, and growing, particularly in the last three years and more. The death knell of education in the country was sounded by the first PPP government, through its ill-conceived policy of nationalisation, and education in the country has not recovered from that blow.
According to the two professors, poor people, even in developed countries, are 'present-oriented', or most concerned with their present state, they are unable to 'defer gratification', or wait for later rewards. Their 'present orientation' encourages poor young adults to drop out of school and take low paying jobs instead of staying in school to increase their future earning potential. Poverty drives millions of Pakistani youth every year to give up everything, including whatever level of education is available, to take up low-paid work, and begin the struggle for bare sustenance, or for the illusive roti, kapra aur makan - the three words conjured over 40 years ago to seduce them.
Hundreds of thousands of Pakistani youths are 'enrolled' in madressahs. There must be thousands amongst such youth with high potential for growth, or who are hypos, as such employees are termed in corporate language, but who would end up wallowing on jobs or work, including some terrifyingly deathly work, well below their innate capacity.
Education is a major 'merit', or factor, which determines where people end up. For Professors McNamee and Miller 'education is gatekeeper institution which sifts and sorts according to individual merit. Grades, credits, diplomas, degrees, certificates are clearly earned, not purchased or appropriated'. However, the professors lament that the difference between elitist schools and state run schools, in the west, is so wide that students of elitist schools have a head start over those of state-run schools, which is an unfair 'merit,' earned more through accident of birth than anything else.
One can be sure the good professors are not talking of Pakistan, where grades, credits, degrees are not only purchasable, but grades and marks are amended under right influence, such as of a serving chief justice in case of his daughter. One can also be sure the professors did not have fake degrees in mind, which is common fact at highest levels in Pakistan.
If the gap in standard of education between elitist and state run schools, in the west, is treated as an unfair and unbalancing 'non-merit' factor in meritocracy, how much more unfair, the deplorable state of education in Pakistan, makes educational disparities a 'non-merit' factor in Pakistan. In essence, less than 5 percent Pakistanis compete in whatever kind of meritocracy prevails in the country, and even amongst these are goodly numbers who purchase their qualifications, or fake them, the remaining 95 percent or less, are excluded by the negative 'non-merit' factors affecting them, and end up having to make do with whatever comes their way.
There is alertness in developed, and in most developing countries, that 'non-merit' factors interfere with a merit based system, the effect of which is like disenfranchising a segment of population in a democracy which, in case of Pakistan, would be the segment of a huge majority. All countries which are alert to the fact, that social injustice is main cause of most 'non merit' factors, are acting to correct this, and to establish an order where the runners in their meritocracy, as much as feasible, will stand in one line at the starting point.
(The writer is former corporate executive)