Authors: Rifky Pratama Wicaksono and Muhammad Rafi Bakri*
Meritocracy is experiencing a global revival, and Indonesia is no exception amid deepening economic and social divides. From fiercely competitive university admissions to fast-track civil-service promotions, the system entices us with the promise of rewarding talent, hard work, and innovation above all else. Yet this seductive ideal dates back more than sixty years, when sociologist Michael Young (1958) first imagined a society in which individual achievement sat at its heart.
Today meritocracy serves as a coveted badge of honor and a benchmark of excellence in places like Singapore with its rigorously assessed civil service, Finland with its world-leading education system, and Germany with its well-established apprenticeship schemes. We cannot help but wonder whether meritocracy genuinely unlocks equal opportunity or is merely a utopian ideal.
At its core, meritocracy offers what feels like pure fairness. It seeks to allocate opportunities in education, government, and business solely on performance, thereby severing the link between inherited privilege and reward. By forging a clear connection between effort and success, it aspires to grant everyone the freedom to shape their own future.
This approach underpins incentive structures in universities, corporations, and public agencies alike. As Michael Sandel (2020) argues, meritocracy affirms a powerful notion of freedom by giving people what they have earned and therefore deserve. In theory anyone can rise as far as their talents allow, and that stir of ambition drives societies forward.
But this ideal can mask harsh realities. When unchecked, meritocracy drifts toward “winners take it all”-cracy. Just as ABBA sings, “The winner takes it all, the loser’s standing small, beside the victory, that’s its destiny,” the system celebrates victors while discarding everyone else. Those who fail to climb quickly may feel trapped by circumstances beyond control. Under a strict meritocratic regime, social safety nets shrink, and compassion fades. Performance becomes the sole criterion for worth.
Yet individual abilities do not develop in a vacuum: family resources, educational access, and social networks shape outcomes. Ignoring these factors risks glorifying triumph and stigmatizing defeat. Ultimately, the myth of meritocracy can foster arrogant elites and fractured communities. Instead of lifting all boats, it may cast many adrift. We must question whether true equal opportunity can ever exist without addressing structural imbalances and redefining our measure of success.
Indonesia’s meritocratic aspirations are threatened by severe inequality from the outset. The World Economic Forum’s Global Social Mobility Report ranks Indonesia 67th of 82 countries, with a score of only 49.3 out of 100 in 2020. This places Indonesia below regional peers such as Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam, indicating limited access to quality education, healthcare, technology, and equitable employment opportunities.
Moreover, Indonesia’s Gini index hovers around 0.38, signaling substantial income disparity. Consequently, children from affluent urban households enter the meritocratic race equipped with superior schooling, technological proficiency, and stronger networks, whereas rural youths must overcome inadequate infrastructure and scarce educational resources, leaving them severely disadvantaged from the start.
Addressing these inequalities is essential before embracing meritocracy as a guiding principle. Without first leveling the playing field, merit-based competition risks reinforcing existing divides by disproportionately rewarding privileged individuals.
This dynamic mirrors Michael Sandel’s critique of meritocracy in the United States, where unequal starting positions have led to entrenched resentment among those left behind. Indonesia must therefore prioritize structural interventions, ensuring genuine equality of opportunity, to prevent meritocracy from becoming an exclusionary system that amplifies social fragmentation.
Sandel’s critique is relevant to the situation in Indonesia. So, let’s first acknowledge that individual abilities are inherently linked to social support, infrastructure, and public policies. The next question is how to balance meritocracy without diminishing the spirit of competition.
Improving structural inequalities through audits of public aid management and affirmative policies becomes one of the keys. The Audit Board of Indonesia (BPK) has a strategic role; in addition to its fiscal oversight function, BPK can design performance audits of social programs.
For example, audits of conditional cash transfers, education subsidies, and vocational training to assess the effectiveness of distribution and its impact on social mobility. With the audit findings, the government can adjust the amount, distribution mechanisms, and recipient criteria to ensure that those with the potential are not hindered by a deficit of basic resources.
If carried out, such an audit by the BPK can identify and prevent budget leaks caused by misuse, ensuring that aid funds are received by those who truly deserve them. Additionally, the assessment of the effectiveness of affirmative programs can measure whether scholarships, vocational courses, and job training have successfully closed the competency gap.
With strategic policy recommendations that address the core issues, the budget can be allocated to sectors that most influence the “starting position,” such as education infrastructure and primary health care.
From the higher education sector, BPK conducted an audit of the management of state universities with legal entities (PTN BH) in 2023, examining their income, expenditure, and asset administration. It was found that the determination and collection of single tuition fees (UKT) did not align with the Provisions of the Minister of Education and Culture Regulation Number 25 of 2020 and the Minister of Education and Culture Decree Number 81 of 2020.
BPK suggested all rectors stop collecting fees exceeding the tuition fees (BKT), UKT invoice for on-break students and students who take courses less than and/or equal to 6 credits, as well as the institution development fees (IPI) other than for diploma and bachelor programs.
This finding reflects how policy and technical misalignment might impede just access to higher education establishments. At a more basic level, comparable issues also exist in the regional skills training program, where the lack of supporting infrastructure makes the training have little actual effect on raising community welfare.
BPK audit on the efforts of the local government to overcome poverty in 2021 discovered that the vocational-based nonformal education affirmation program in Papua Province was misdirected—the materials provided could not be used due to a lack of equipment, capital, and even basic facilities such as toilets. As a result, the skills provided are primarily theoretical. BPK advised an inventory of technological impediments as the foundation for planning, developing long-term plans for business resilience, and mapping SMEs based on actual needs. This conclusion highlights that meritocracy will never be fair until the state provides the fundamental tools for competition. Without it, competition exacerbates inequality.
Through planned and transparent audits, Indonesia does not only close the “initial gap” of inequality but also builds a foundation of true meritocracy: healthy competition, where success truly reflects talent and hard work, not just the luck of the initial position. These institutional improvements will reduce social resistance to meritocracy, as society will feel procedural and structural fairness: that the rules of the competition are built on equal conditions.
Unchecked meritocracy is as dangerous as oligarchy: it entrenches the caste of winners and marginalizes the losers. Indonesia needs a meritocracy that favors substantive justice—where every individual has equal access to basic resources before competing for achievements.
Through progressive BPK audits, the government can reduce inequality and ensure that meritocracy functions as an inclusive mechanism, not an exclusive one. Only in this way can the principle of meritocracy coexist harmoniously with education and social protection, building an advanced and just society.
Reimagining meritocracy for a more just society, we must ensure it’s not just “the winner takes it all,” but that everyone has a fair shot at the music—and a chance to dance.
*Muhammad Rafi Bakri, a research analyst at the Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia (BPK RI).
