>If you have a good firm grounding for meritocracy, fascism, technocracy, etc then you should have a sound argument to present it.

This is almost the same thing. Youre saying "if its not democracy it must be one of these other ones that has already been thought up and that the case must be made for another to make the case against valid" as if a new new, different form of rule, ever unthought up before cant exist.

Im not even making an argument against democracy, I am saying one day I realized that through all my schooling I never actually questioned the tenant that it might not be the default right answer. It was a scary and intriguing experience to suddenly realize "I just assumed this was the best answer because I was told it was and the argument sounded good at the time and I based my opinion of everything else on that assumption, I never really questioned that belief, maybe I shouldnt do that. Maybe there were ulterior motives for teaching me it was the default correct answer (Democracy sustaining itself?) If education was able to get me to belief this thing without questioning it, what other biases did I absorb that I am unaware of and should also be questioning?"

Democracy very well might be the best right answer, but its better for me to be able to question that belief, its origin, its purpose, and its validity, than for me not to be able to question at all. For me its better to not have faith that it is correct, but instead judge it from a leveled objective playing field. It's better for my critical thinking skills to not take "the worst form of Government except for all those others" as the gospel of a dogma.