| Everything is a power structure. Specifically, every social gathering naturally develops a power structure as people of different wills, backgrounds, and agendas meet and interact.
The defining features of any power structure is the way in which control and domination passes from one party to another. There are two basic schemes of power distribution which will be familiar to people East and West:
1: Aristocracy. In an aristocracy, certain persons are considered to have a certain authority, whether they can properly and efficiently execute it or not. They have it, not because they are qualified to use it, but because they are entitled to it under some theory. In fact, our very use of the word "entitle" is derived from aristocratic traditions whereby holdings and authority were derived from a title.
Because it is assumed that the titular claim of the executive overrides any considerations of actual application, it is extremely important to train the executive to use his authority wisely. For example, in medieval Europe, the eldest son of a lord was held to inherit the lord's title, estate, and responsibilities. This was taken as a given. Therefore, the young man was expected to learn how to govern and command, so that he could make the most of the authority to which he was already entitled.
2: Meritocracy. In a meritocracy, authority is distributed according to "merit," or ability. Executives are selected for office because they are already considered to have qualities most endemic to leadership. Offices are therefore public, rather than private as they are under aristocracy. The very idea of a "public office" is a meritocratic one.
The ways in which decisions are made regarding entitlement differentiate various forms of meritocracy. Some meritocracies are centralised, with established authorities determining criteria, such as standardised tests. Some meritocracies are decentralised, with a number of parties contributing to the appointment process so as to represent a variety of interests. The archetypes of meritocracy in the West are democracy and bureaucracy, the keystones of Western politics.
Now, many modern institutions are a mix of these two forms. In the West, starting in the 17th Century, there has been an increasing trend towards the abolishment of aristocracy and the establishment of meritocracy. This trend really began in England in the mid-17th Century, with the impeachment and execution of King Charles I by a democratic movement led by the Puritans; Charles was put to death by a Parliament majority of 50% plus one. This experiment failed, however; Charles's exiled son, James Stuart, was invited by the people of England to become King James II, and radical meritocracy in general fizzled in the public imagination until the late 18th Century, with the American and French Revolutions. Although the French Revolution degenerated into the Reign of Terror, Western nations slowly began to build upon democratic institutions already in place in many of the aristocratic nations. Parliaments were established and Constitutions drafted. The second "wave" of meritocracy came in the late 19th Century, with the rise of bureaucracy, and culminating in the Communist Revolutions of Russia. The result of all these compoundings is a rich tapestry of compound power structures.
In Canada, for example, we have the House of Commons (also called "Parliament"), which consists of elected representatives. The representatives elect a Prime Minister, who then selects a Cabinet from among the other members of Parliament. The cabinet members assume the duties of Ministers of particular public ministries. This is democracy, a decentralised meritocratic selection process. Within those ministries, the Ministers work with Deputy Ministers, career civil servants, who achieved their positions because of their seniority and ability. This is bureaucracy, a centralised meritocracy.
However, Canada is also part of the "Commonwealth," and is therefore ruled by a monarch. The king's position is hereditary, and though bound by Constitution and largely ceremonial, the potential for abuse of this station means that heirs must learn tactics, diplomacy, and good governance.
England is an even more complicated case, because in addition to the House of Commons, they have the House of Lords, which consists partly of aristocrats and partly of meritocrats. Life Peers are appointed by Parliament, and therefore Life Peerage is a meritocratic title. Hereditary Peers, on the other hand, have titles that are (in case you didn't guess) hereditary, and therefore are an aristocratic class.
In addition to all this, both nations are capitalistic. Just try to figure out whether capitalism is primarily a meritocratic or an aristocratic distribution. It'll make your head hurt, I promise.
Here's another great example: The power structure of Everything2.
You see, Everything has an unwritten Constitution. Occasionally, there are controversies -- like the DMan fiasco -- but in general everyone knows their place, and when someone must assert their authority, everyone quickly finds their place.
At the highest level, we have EveryDevel, the aristocracy of Everything. What they say, goes, and that's that. They own and operate the servers, they own and operate the domain, and are therefore entitled to do whatever they chose with Everything, whether we, the users, like it or not. Traditionally, they do not exercise this authority except to implement or modify superdocs, features, and so on. A precedent was set on September 20, 2000, when the infamous DMan was booted off Everything for being a dick. Aspiring Everything historians will no doubt be aware of the significance of this being mentioned this week, of all times.
As far as actual content goes, though, all authority on Everything is derived meritocratically. A great deal of power is diffused throughout the user population in Everything's unique experience system. This system is explicitly meritocratic. Every user has a degree of authority proportionate to the extent of his contribution. As a user rises in level, additional powers and privileges are conferred upon him. Advancement as a user is both centralised and decentralised. It is centralised in so far as one is required to have written a certain number of writeups and acquired a certain number of experience points before one can advance. Furthermore, points can be gained by voting. It is decentralised in that these points can also be given by other users.
Furthermore, there are the Gods and Editors. These appointments are made by the aristocracy, but they are made by reference to merit and are therefore meritocratic. In this case, the "kings" are nate, dem bones, etc., who stand in the place of "standardised tests" to establish a centralised meritocracy.
Most Western institutions blend meritocracy with aristocracy. The major concern of an aristocracy is, "How do we instill ability in this person who is our leader?" The major concern of a meritocracy is, "How do we find the person of ability to be our leader?" | 
