I would be in favour of a balance between technical experts and those who focus more on the human side of the equation. Life is not just technical, so basing leadership just on that will certainly lead to a super-efficient, very unhappy world. As is the case with most things in this world, between every set of extreme possibilities there is a best-answer that lies somewhere in the middle.

I imagine a parliament where you have members who are there as counter-balances strictly because of their technological/scientific expertise. They would voice their opinions and recommendations from a technical perspective, while the non-technical members would argue as they do now, from human/philosophical/emotional points of view.

Maybe not a pure Technocracy but a Technology aware, forward thinking country with focus on improving the human condition (on an economical, social and personal levels) by using technology would be a better idea?

I think one of the issues is that Technocracy could be associated with Elitism, one way to work around that is to ensure that we have a highly educated, proactive populace, that in turn could result in a true democracy which could work very well.

This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I am not a fan of technocracy, because a technocratic system is ultimately not a democratic one. The idea of government by experts and government by the general populace are fundamentally opposed, because by definition the general populace can't all be experts. Similarly, there are ultimately too many questions that governments have to make that simply aren't receptive to technocratic expertise. Sure, the input of scientists may be decisive when discussing drug legalisation or climate change, but who are the technocratic experts who you call on when considering what's the right level for the minimum wage? Policy analysts? We already have plenty of input from them, and it hasn't resulted in a superior policy.

It's one thing to say technocrats should have input, which they currently do. But ultimately some questions are political questions, and technocratic input cannot be decisive, because there is no 'correct' answer to them - just different ideas about what kind of priorities we want our society to have.