I'm interested in this, if it's still open! Made an account so I can help contribute after being a fan of SFIA for a couple years. I have an nonlethal passion for sociology and political sociology. As a writer at heart, I like making sure the world-building is believable and realistic. With governments, creating the "perfect" one is something that is only in fiction, and even there, the words "perfect social order" often describe a government in a dystopia, which is also a utopia but only for some people who succeeded the most in the system. While I agree that if you're applying to be a minister of health, you better know a thing or two about healthcare and the struggles of working in a hospital, so a technocracy could work, but it's the other elements that are interesting.
Once thing that confused me is the idea of a decentralized authoritarian parliament. Authoritarianism is defined as a small elite or single leader controlling everything and individuals not having much if any freedom, a very centralized government that requires blind obedience with no criticism. Stories like 1984 or modern-day China come to mind with this, as they launched a credit system based on everything a person does. An individual can be punished harshly (no-fly list or unemployment) for as much as criticizing an official. Better yet, what type of authoritative government are we going for here? Jurisdiction makes me think on it's a local level; citizens are loyal to their ministry's leadership, ministry loyal to the district/parliament, etc. What laws are in place to keep the people happy while keeping the peace, while not allowing sneaky candidates smooth-talk their way to these powerful positions just because they have high merit? If someone travels between ministry jurisdictions, if possible, are they still subject to the same laws as their home ministry when they return?
Another is about the merit itself. Would it apply to everything in a person's life (college applications, jobs, clubs, etc), or does it really only matter if someone is dealing with governmental matters? How will contributions be measured, and is there a quota each person/household should reach? What happens if they don't reach it? This type of government is also flawed since what is considered "desirable" traits differ from person to person; some prefer a more aggressive/assertive persona, others want a more civil and diplomatic personality. Depending on how public these merit statistics are on individuals, it can create class rifts. People with low merit have less chances to gain merit and are seen as low-class, while high-merit citizens are given more opportunities simply because of their merit, especially if parents pass down their merit to their children or friends influence each other's merit by simply being around them. What happens if a low-merit person is best friends with a high-merit person?
What would it be merit based off of? Academic grades? Talent in science or STEM fields? Career track record? School of thought? What is in place so it doesn't turn into a like-minded groupthink among high-merit candidates, which would limit new perspectives and ideas into government and slow progress? It would also limit people who are interested in non-science fields, like fine arts or literature or entertainment, if we go by what a person can contribute to a technologically based government. How would right brained (creative and imaginative) people gain as high merit as left brained people (logical and analytical, essential for most sciences)? Current USA education requires a lot of utilization of the left side of the brain, putting creativity as optional electives that only boost your grade a little bit if you can juggle other classes that hold little to no interest to you or are difficult to effectively grasp.
I'm writing a document that goes into more questions I have about this if you want, and most I'm going to try to help answer as well. Just throwing these out there because these concern the basic structure of society itself, and I wonder if these have answers already.Technocracies and meritocracies have been shunned in general because of the power ranking and how it can easily spiral into a dystopia for the public while it's a utopia for those who climb high enough on the ladder.
I like picking things apart to make sure what's pictured in my head is what was intended. No government style is flawlessly perfect, but it can be refined so everyone is happy without being forced into being happy. That's enough for my essay.... what do you think?