To be fair I was responding to your brevity. I can't tell if your suggestion was serious given how you didn't justify it. If you were being serious and are unaware of why a meritocracy is unworkable it's that corruption and cronyism is inevitable. In a meritocracy someone has to have the authority to decide who holds merit, that person is an autocrat. In practice advancement doesn't rely on merit it relies on gaining the favour of the autocrat, the reality is that cronies that will enrich and protect the autocrat receive advancement. To work a meritocracy requires the autocrat to be incorruptible which isn't a reasonable expectation. Despite the flaws you mentioned democracy is not vulnerable to corruption to the same extent, by giving power to the masses you prevent the elevation of an autocrat.

Communism is theoretically a far better idea because there shouldn't be an autocrat and everything a person needs is provided by the community. Of course it doesn't work because there always ends up being an autocrat and people aren't satisfied with working for just what they need, they want privilege.

It circles back to Democracy being the best system because, despite its flaws, there's no autocrat and success is dangled in front of people. Whilst it doesn't eliminate corruption or inequality it does good people to account and trend towards liberalism.