Theories connecting meritocracy and democratic stability are heavily understudied, and there are few attempts to empirically disentangle the potential mechanisms. This article proposes a novel explanation, emphasizing that bureaucratic impartiality and effectiveness provide separate shields that stabilize democracies. Impartiality protects the opposition from unlawful discrimination, which raises support for democracy among the (potential) losers of elections and reduces the incentives to rebel or stage coups d’état, whereas effectiveness serves incumbent policies, which raises support among the (potential) winners and reduces the likelihood of incumbent takeovers. I find support for these propositions in comparative-historical analyses of a few paradigmatic cases—interwar Finland, Czechoslovakia, and Germany—with similar levels of economic development, imperial-autocratic legacies, and meritocratic types of administration but different regime outcomes. The results show that both impartial and effective bureaucratic behavior rather than meritocratic recruitment norms as such are important stabilizers of democracy. Yet they emphasize the importance of bureaucratic effectiveness in raising the perception that votes count to change outcomes on the ground and thus that democracy makes a difference. I argue that this should have a wider significance for the study of contemporary processes of democratic recession.

中文翻译：

---

贤能政治在稳定民主中的局限性与官僚公正性和有效性的双重重要性

将精英管理与民主稳定联系起来的理论研究不足，很少有人尝试从经验上解开潜在机制。本文提出了一种新颖的解释，强调官僚的公正性和有效性提供了稳定民主的独立屏障。公正性保护反对派免受非法歧视，这增加了（潜在）选举失败者对民主的支持，并减少了反叛或发动政变的动机，而有效性服务于现行政策，这增加了（潜在）获胜者和降低现有收购的可能性。我在对几个典型案例的比较历史分析中找到了对这些命题的支持——两次世界大战期间的芬兰、捷克斯洛伐克、和德国——经济发展水平相似，帝国专制遗产和精英管理类型，但政权结果不同。结果表明，公正和有效的官僚行为而不是任人唯贤的招聘规范本身是民主的重要稳定器。然而，他们强调了官僚机构的有效性在提高人们的认识方面的重要性，即选票很重要，可以改变当地的结果，因此民主会有所作为。我认为这对研究当代民主衰退过程应该具有更广泛的意义。结果表明，公正和有效的官僚行为而不是任人唯贤的招聘规范本身是民主的重要稳定器。然而，他们强调了官僚机构的有效性在提高人们的认识方面的重要性，即选票很重要，可以改变当地的结果，因此民主会有所作为。我认为这对研究当代民主衰退过程应该具有更广泛的意义。结果表明，公正和有效的官僚行为而不是任人唯贤的招聘规范本身是民主的重要稳定器。然而，他们强调了官僚机构的有效性在提高人们的认识方面的重要性，即选票很重要，可以改变当地的结果，因此民主会有所作为。我认为这对研究当代民主衰退过程应该具有更广泛的意义。