Political merit sounds like a simple principle on which to base the legitimacy and, hence, the stability of a polity. Those who rule such an arrangement should deserve (“merit”) the position they have attained. I doubt if there has ever been a ruler who did not make such a claim: “I deserve to govern you because I am better (at something) than you are” – even if that something is just because he or she has more resources and a greater capacity for exercising coercion than you do.

What makes a difference is not just the criterion for making this self-assertion, but also whether it is shared by both the ruler and the ruled. Only when the notion of merit is mutually acceptable is it likely to induce voluntary compliance and serve to legitimate the position of the ruler or rulers. In a democratic regime, the justification rests on the expressed opinions and actions of citizens (who may be wrong in their judgment about merit and elect quite incompetent and corrupt leaders). In an autocratic one, the rulers are likely to claim to be more worthy in absolute terms regardless of the “shortsighted” or “ill-informed” opinions of their subjects (who may even agree with this judgment, at least for a while).