OK, I’ll bite. A very reductionist definition is “bigger contribution = bigger reward”.
The term meritocracy has often been by people who have a very clear view on what contribution and reward mean and they typically assume a closed and fair system where everyone already agreed on the meaning of those terms and on the rules on how to evaluate those things on a case by case basis.
To be honest I'm just not sure whether it is a useful term at all outside of games, sports and other controlled systems with predefined and agreed upon rules.
The other good merit function we have is one vote per person, that is how we elect national leaders, this doesn't have some of the abusive loopholes as the capitalist merit function, but instead it has other abusive properties which is why every modern country choose to do a mix of both.
To me the term meritocracy just seems too idealist and it assumes too much in relation to complex and varied systems like economy or politics.
Perhaps this system does not have a built in mechanism for empathy… that’s a stronger argument against it in my view.
Tenure or background based systems are far less desirable - wouldn’t you agree?
I think you hit the nail on the head with empathy. Empathy is contextual, subjective and real. It cannot be pinned down with rules, it’s too humane and powerful for that.