Blueprint · a supporter’s handbook · July 2026
A handbook for those who support the meritocratic path of systemic change. A working draft, open to consultation — published in this form deliberately, because a document about transparency should not be produced behind closed doors.
I. Foundation — what kind of meritocracy, and why
Let us begin with an honest distinction, for the word “meritocracy” is often misused. Meritocracy as Just Council understands it is not the rule of the educated over everyone else. It is not an aristocracy of diplomas. It is the principle that public decisions are taken on the basis of competence, data and evidence — while upholding the unconditional dignity of every person, irrespective of their education or position.
This distinction is no mere ornament. Michael Sandel, in The Tyranny of Merit, showed how meritocratic systems lacking a moral corrective breed hubris among the winners and humiliation among the losers — and how that humiliation tears political communities apart from within. Just Council answers this critique with two values: unconditional dignity and compassion with discernment. Meritocracy without dignity becomes tyranny. Dignity without meritocracy becomes chaos. We need both.
The second corrective concerns the starting line. Meritocracy is just only when the start is level. A child from a small town without access to a good nursery school does not lose a contest of competence — it loses the lottery of birth. That is why the meritocratic path begins not with selecting the best, but with levelling opportunities at the start.
The third corrective concerns humility. Data do not replace values. Moral neutrality of analysis means weighing the evidence honestly, not moral indifference. A technocrat who believes that a spreadsheet will settle what the good life is, is just as dangerous as a demagogue who believes that shouting will settle it.
From these three correctives follows a working definition: the meritocratic path is the building of institutions in which competence decides, data speak, dignity binds, and continuity outlasts the term of office.
II. A map of levers — where the constitutional order allows action
The constitutional order of the Republic (Rzeczpospolita) already contains institutions that could carry meritocracy; the problem is that most of them function as a façade. Reform does not require amending the Constitution — it requires filling with substance what the Constitution already provides for.
| Lever | Constitutional mechanism | What actually to change | Leading value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Civil service | Article 153 of the Constitution, the civil service corps | Genuine competitions instead of sham ones; stability of directors general beyond the electoral cycle; transparent criteria for promotion | Trust, responsibility |
| Legislative process | Regulatory impact assessment (OSR), public consultation, vacatio legis | Rigorous ex ante impact assessment; mandatory ex post evaluation after 3–5 years; a minimum vacatio legis for social reforms | Transparency, learning |
| Expert bodies and councils | Programme councils, agencies (AOTMiT, NCN, NCBR) | Terms of office longer than the term of the Sejm; transparent criteria for appointments; protection against replacement after elections | Moral neutrality of analysis |
| Multi-year funding | Budget acts, strategic frameworks | Six- and ten-year financial frameworks for health, education and science with automatic indexation | Hope, solidarity |
| Public data | Right to information, public registers | Public dashboards of policy outcomes; quality registers; data as the property of citizens, not of ministries | Transparency |
| Local self-government and subsidiarity | Articles 15–16 of the Constitution | Regional pilots instead of nationwide revolutions; scaling up what has worked | Proportionality |
| A culture of error in public administration | Official accountability | Just Culture in public offices: separating systemic error from personal fault; an official who reports a problem is rewarded, not punished | Compassion with discernment, courage |
These seven levers are united by a single principle: we do not replace people — we replace the architecture within which people act. The replacement of personnel after every election is precisely the disease we wish to cure; we must not replicate it under the banner of meritocracy.
III. Sequence — where to begin, and why in this order
The order is not arbitrary. It follows from the logic of trust: one cannot ask citizens and officials to trust reforms before the reformers have demonstrated transparency.
Phase one — transparency and data, a two-year horizon. Public dashboards of policy outcomes, mandatory ex post evaluations, the opening of registers. This costs the least, requires no major legislation and creates the evidential foundation for everything that follows. Whoever fears transparency disqualifies themselves — and that, too, is information.
Phase two — institutionalising competence, a horizon of two to five years. A genuine civil service, depoliticised expert bodies with terms of office exceeding the parliamentary term, transparent criteria for appointments. This is where resistance begins, because this is where politics is deprived of its spoils. That is why this phase requires the foundation of trust laid in phase one.
Phase three — consolidation beyond terms of office, a horizon of five to ten years. Multi-year financial frameworks for health, education and science; cross-party pacts modelled on the agreements that in Ireland and Finland removed education from party-political dispute.
An attempt to skip the sequence ends as every Polish reform introduced “as of next September” has ended: in resistance, reversal and cynicism.
IV. Schooling — what to change, and the risks reforms carry
Education is the foundation of meritocracy — without it, the selection of competence becomes a selection by background. But precisely for that reason, mistakes in reforming it cost the most and last the longest.
What to change. First, stability: the core curriculum and the structure of the school system to remain untouched for at least a decade, changed only by evolution and on the basis of evaluation. Second, the prestige of the teaching profession: a pay path linked to the development of competence, not solely to length of service, together with genuine methodological autonomy. Third, levelling the start: universal access to high-quality pre-school education, because more is decided there than at the school-leaving examination. Fourth, a balance between the autonomy of schools and accountability for outcomes — measured wisely, not through testing mania.
The risk of a reform see-saw. Poland has changed the structure of its school system more often than once a generation. Every revolution costs at least one year-group of pupils and several years of organisational chaos. Even a good change introduced by revolution is a bad change.
The risk of politicising the curriculum. When school subjects become an ideological battlefield, everyone loses: parents lose trust, teachers their dignity, pupils coherence.
The risk of a staff exodus. Reform without teachers is reform on paper. Every change that increases workloads without raising prestige and pay accelerates the departure of the best — and those who remain are those with nowhere else to go. That is the opposite of meritocracy.
The risk of sham meritocracy. When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to measure. Testing mania teaches how to pass tests, not how to think.
The risk of inequality. Meritocracy without a level start reproduces privilege and calls it talent. Private tutoring as a parallel education system is a silent indictment of the public system.
V. Higher education — what to change, and the risks
What to change: qualitative evaluation instead of point-scoring; academic career paths based on genuine achievement, not on seniority and connections; permeability between science and the economy — industrial doctorates, clear rules on intellectual property, two-way mobility; internationalisation as the norm, not the exception.
“Point-mania” — the lesson learnt, the conclusion not drawn. The 2018 reform was meant to measure the quality of science; it produced an industry of publications written for points. A measure without a culture of quality distorts faster than it measures.
Brain drain. Raising requirements without raising funding and conditions accelerates the departure of the best. A reform that does not answer the question “why should they stay?” is incomplete.
Sham competitions. A competition decided in favour of a candidate known in advance destroys more than a single post — it destroys the belief of the young that it is worth playing fair. This must be called by its name, within one’s own community as well.
The tension between autonomy and accountability. Too strong an intervention by the state politicises science; too weak a one preserves the feudalism of academic chairs. Full autonomy in teaching and research; uncompromising accountability for public money.
VI. The supporter’s code
An institutional blueprint without a code of conduct is dead. Six principles for everyone who supports this path.
Build, do not comment. The dividing line is not party, but attitude: do you take responsibility or avoid it?
Acknowledge the problem, trace it to the system. The pathologies are real, but they are a symptom of the absence of architecture, not its cause. Whoever stops at the guilty never arrives at solutions.
Protect people, demand of the system. A teacher, an official or a scientist who reports a problem is an ally, not a threat.
Speak in data, remember dignity. Data are the language of meritocracy, but a human being is not a row in a spreadsheet.
Continuity above tribalism. Support good solutions regardless of who introduced them. Nothing lends a meritocrat more credibility than defending a sensible decision of their opponents.
Learn in public. Admitting the error of one’s own community is not weakness — it is proof that the values are real.
VII. The risks of the whole path — an examination of conscience
The risk of elitism. Meritocracy can degenerate into a new aristocracy — of diplomas instead of coats of arms. Its guardian is unconditional dignity: competence confers the right to decide on solutions, never on the worth of a human being.
The risk of technocratic hubris. The conviction that data will settle everything is just as dogmatic as the conviction that they settle nothing.
The risk of the appropriation of language. Every government will gladly call its own people experts and the expertise of its opponents ideology. The only defence is transparent criteria, transparent procedures and terms of office that extend beyond the electoral cycle.
The risk of impatience. Institutional change takes longer than a term of office and longer than enthusiasm. Organic work after 1863 lasted two generations before it yielded independence. That is the measure.
VIII. Measures of success
A meritocrat does not proclaim victory — they measure it.
| Area | Indicator | Direction |
|---|---|---|
| Civil service | Percentage of directors general replaced within a year of an election | Decrease |
| Legislation | Percentage of acts that have undergone ex post evaluation | Increase |
| Schooling | Stability of the core curriculum; percentage of teachers under the age of 35 | Increase in both |
| Levelling the start | Pre-school education coverage outside cities | Increase |
| Science | Expenditure on research and development as a percentage of GDP; percentage of competitions with more than one genuine candidate | Increase in both |
| Social trust | Generalised trust index (ESS) | From 22–24% towards 40% |
The last indicator is the most important and the slowest. Social trust is the aggregate thermometer of all the others — and the only capital that can be neither borrowed nor decreed.
Epilogue
The meritocratic path does not promise swift victories. It promises something rarer: that the victories which do come will be lasting — because they are built on architecture, not on a term of office; on competence, not on spoils; on dignity, not on the humiliation of the defeated.
A nation that rebuilt its state through organic work, that built Gdynia and won its freedom through the solidarity of ten million, has in its experience everything this path requires: the patience of builders, the courage of the righteous, and a hope that is a plan, not a dream.
All that is needed — and it is no small thing — is enough people who decide that the constitutional order of their own state is not a matter of indifference to them.
The principles on which this document rests are set out in the handbook of the doctrine and the Just Council Canon. The other areas of application — including the State Health Shield and the oversight of artificial intelligence — can be found on the Areas page.
