A Case for Communitarian Meritocracy: A Critical Engagement with Michael Sandel

In this paper, I examine Sandel’s recent criticism of meritocracy. I argue that even though Sandel appeals to the rhetoric of luck in his criticism, unlike Rawls, his fundamental political aspiration is a kind of communitarian republicanism rather than liberal egalitarianism. However, Sandel’s suggestion of lottery elements in college admission does not help much in reducing inequality and political polarization. After comparing Mulligan’s meritocratic thesis, I argue that the problems of inequality and polarization in the U.S. are not caused by meritocracy; rather it is due to a lack of substantive equal opportunity. And I would argue that as long as substantive equal educational opportunities are guaranteed, there is no reason to reject meritocracy. And by taking reference from the experience of Hong Kong’s educational reform, I further argue that one important way to achieve equal educational opportunities is through leveling-up educational policies, such as providing competitive publicly-funded education, which not only provides equal opportunity to everyone to develop their capabilities regardless of their different family backgrounds, but also establishes citizens’ participatory readiness, so that they can effectively participate in creating and sustaining communitarian meritocracy.