Noocracy: The Utopia of Governance by those with IQ > 140

Only the most intelligent would vote: noocracy as an alternative

The representative democracy is going through its worst crisis of confidence. In this context, an old proposal resurfaces: that only citizens with an IQ superior to 140 should vote. Noocracy, or the government of the wise, suggests that the masses are not ready to decide. And behind this proposal are concrete figures: in Spain, the collective is estimated between 150,000 and 225,000 people. The idea is divisive.

---

How would noocracy work in Spain?

The proposal starts from a premise: current democracy is a partyocracy where citizens merely ratify the elites. To prevent this, power should reside with the top 2% of minds. The model proposes a target population of 150,000 individuals with an IQ > 140, of whom 75,000 would govern at any given time. With rotation every three years, 25,000 would come and go annually, preventing the formation of a caste. In three years, the entire government body would be completely renewed. This would eliminate professional politicians and prevent burnout.

Admission would occur through an IQ test, similar to Mensa. The proponent himself would undergo this process without exception. And an urgent task of this elite would be to simplify legislation so that it is understandable by everyone. This is the part with the most defenses: current regulatory complexity is chaos that condemns the citizen to ignorance.

Emotional voting: democracy's Achilles' heel

The central argument is that the average voter does not act as a rational individual, but as part of a tribe. Statistics, it is argued, show that a group with an average IQ of 100 behaves in mass action with a lower effective IQ. This is why noocracy proposes a test of 100 basic questions to be able to vote, ranging from logic to cognitive biases. Without knowing this, the impact of the vote cannot be predicted.

The Great Confinement pandemic is cited as an example of becoming sheepish: tolerating confinement like oxen. And here lies the irony: participatory democracy assumes that the citizen acts rationally, but evidence shows they vote based on emotional narratives, not data analysis. Political parties know this and exploit polarization.

Criticisms: the tyranny of the intellectual coefficient

The proposal is not trivial. Critics point out that high intelligence does not imply common sense or lack of corruption. Asimov is quoted: those who believe themselves intelligent often do not think critically, and IQ measures more memory than genuine intelligence. It is also noted that concentrating power in a group, even if meritocratic, opens Pandora's box: why 140 and not 120? Why intelligence and not income?

Others hold that it would simply be a tyranny without checks. Plato himself, a great defender of the government of the wise, maintained that guardians should not mix with the plebeians. But history has shown that even the best men become corrupt. And as the saying goes, "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." In practice, there are no guarantees that those with IQ>140 will be the most ethical.

Alternatives: from unicameral representation to technocracy

Among the alternatives is unicameral representation: dividing the country into population districts, where each district elects a non-partisan representative. Anyone can run, and the representative consults their electors before voting. Others defend technocracy, also listening to the people. And those who appeal to "militontocracy" are not lacking, arguing that only military power can guarantee order. Curiously, the noocracy proposal found an echo in a Starship Troopers video, where citizens who had served in the army held more rights than civilians.

The D'Hondt law is also mentioned, which makes a vote in sparsely populated provinces like Teruel or Soria count more than one in Madrid, exacerbating the feeling that the vote is not equal. The debate is not new. René Guénon wrote it down: democracy is a factual impossibility because a small group always commands, and universal suffrage promotes mediocrity. This is why noocracy is sold as the only alternative to impending total dictatorship. That is the most disturbing part: distrust of the people is the seed of authoritarian regimes.

The point where analysis stalls

Noocracy has a problem of legitimacy: consent is not granted by decree. Although the idea may be logical on paper, no system works if people do not accept it. And that is exactly where the analysis stalls: if the people do not accept that the wise shall rule them, the solution becomes an invocation of nonsense. As Antonio de Rivarol wrote, "the absolute ruler may be a Nero, but sometimes he is Titus or Marcus Aurelius; the people are usually Nero, and never Marcus Aurelius." But experience shows that neither the wise nor the foolish guarantee good politics. Only uncertainty remains.