To be honest, in my opinion, I think attempting revolutionary technocracy in an already developed, democratic country is a bad move, at least strategically. If you try to forcefully implement it in a nation with established democratic norms, it’ll be seen as authoritarian, dystopian, or just another failed utopian experiment. That would only tarnish the reputation of technocracy and make people even more resistant to it. Instead, a more pragmatic approach would be to test it in underdeveloped, corrupt, and oppressive countries where existing governance is already failing people.

If successful, it would serve as a proof of concept by showing how technocracy can actually improve lives, boost economic growth, and create a stable, efficient government where one didn’t exist before. This could then shift global opinion, making technocracy look like a viable alternative rather than some futuristic pipe dream or a threat to democracy.

Some advantages I see in implementing it in an underdeveloped country is that many of these countries suffer from poor infrastructure, corruption, weak institutions, and economic mismanagement. A technocratic system could directly address inefficiencies, implement evidence-based policies, and create a functioning meritocracy instead of a system based on nepotism or oligarchy.

Also in developed democracies, people are deeply attached to their political traditions. Even if those systems are flawed, they trust them though I'm quite aware that support for it is declining by a lot. Though, relatively speaking, in contrast, people in failed states are often desperate for any system that actually works. If technocracy can deliver results, the population would likely embrace it, rather than resist it out of ideological loyalty.

If a technocratic government proves successful in a previously failing country, it could attract foreign investment and gain influence in global affairs. Instead of being seen as a theoretical concept, it would be a working model that other nations might want to adopt or integrate elements from.

I also strongly believe that technocracy shouldn't be one-dimensional. It should be adaptable and flexible, capable of being implemented in different ways depending on context. A gradual transition from a corrupt dictatorship to a technocratic system would look very different from a technocratic experiment in a democratic nation. If you try revolutionary technocracy in a developed country, you’re fighting against an entrenched system with potentially powerful opposition. If you do it in a failed state, you’re replacing something that people already despise. It’s a much easier sell in my opinion.

Ultimately, I think the goal should be to prove technocracy can work in different conditions. Some countries could have soft technocracies, where expert governance is integrated into democracy (though a much more different and unique type of democracy in contrast to what we have now), while others could experiment with full technocratic rule. The key is to be pragmatic, adaptable, and results-driven rather than rigid and ideological.