Can technocracy, with adjustments to its historical flaws, be a viable alternative to capitalism?

I've been thinking a lot about political and economic systems, and I find the idea of technocracy—a system where decision-making is led by experts and specialists—very intriguing. Historically, technocratic ideas have appeared in various forms, but many examples are criticized due to context-specific failures, authoritarian tendencies, or lack of proper implementation.

Could technocracy, if its critical flaws were addressed (e.g., preventing corruption, ensuring accountability, separating it from authoritarian structures), become a viable and perhaps even superior alternative to capitalism or liberal democracies as we know them today?

For me, being an expert also means being wise—expertise shouldn't be limited to technical skill, but should include long-term thinking, humility, and ethical awareness.

I’m not advocating for a specific model, but rather asking in philosophical terms:
– What would be the main ethical or philosophical critiques of technocracy, beyond the historical failures?
– Could a system led by rational, specialized governance be more just or effective?
– Or would it inevitably conflict with the values of autonomy, pluralism, or democracy?

Curious to hear your thoughts.