What makes you think anybody actually has any interest in a true meritocracy? There are good reasons all supposed meritocracies turn out not to be actually based on merit but more on personal preference. Humans are social animals and we tend to prefer surrounding us with people we like, not necessarily people who are best at their job.
That's the thing, you could just game the system to your advantage and gain power. We know that in a controlled environment like academia and science, this produces inferior results overall. Mixed form Nash equilibria work on a relative level of progress, but it seems transactions of sacrifices produces greater absolute gains - to specialise in one direction to take great action in, and be supportive of others' specialisations.
1. Meritocracy tends to produce superior results to systems based on nepotism — so people who want the best outcome for their tribe should preference merit.
2. Power is the ultimate meritocracy — you have it or you don’t. One of our best strategies to reduce the raw usage of power to settle disputes within society is create a social system that roughly follows meritocracy.
Humans are social animals, but we’re also animals that like prosperity and safety.
There’s never been a meritocracy. That’s the whole point of the word being used in the satire critiquing a meritocracy. Like the points being made here.
That's a collective prisoners dilemma that we ought to break out of. An individual can win at the expense of the group. What we should be striving for is to align the incentives of individuals with the incentives of the group.
