The meritocratic ideal—the notion that success in society is purely a result of individual ability and effort—is deeply embedded in the political culture of many Western democracies. This ideal suggests that as long as equality of opportunity is guaranteed, any resulting inequality in outcome is fair and even desirable. However, sociologists have identified several flaws in this logic. First, equality of opportunity is rarely achieved in practice, as children from affluent families benefit from superior educational resources and social networks. Second, the meritocratic focus on 'ability' often masks the fact that what a society defines as valuable skills is often determined by those already in power. This means that merit is not a neutral or objective quality but a social construct that reflects existing hierarchies. Furthermore, the psychological impact of meritocracy can be damaging; those who succeed are encouraged to believe their success is entirely their own doing, while those who fail are led to believe their failure is a personal defect. This creates a sense of entitlement among winners and resentment among losers, undermining social cohesion. Therefore, a truly just society must look beyond meritocracy to consider how to value all forms of contribution and ensure that the basic needs of all citizens are met regardless of their market-defined merit.