Regarding minority influence in democracy

I was not speaking primarily or exclusively of electoral influence, but of legal influence generally. Within many if not most democracies, their are formalized avenues of non-electoral appeal and pursuit (e.g. judiciary). With respect to the electoral process, minority organizing is becoming an increasingly refined practice and disadvantaged populations are increasingly able to organize to sway the voting majority to their cause (e.g. gay rights, trans rights, etc.). The change my not occur rapidly, but democracy does permit it and I would argue that it does so more readily with greater consistency than most other systems can.

Regarding access to education

(1) Testing programs are notoriously corruptible, with a long history of intentionally systemic discrimination along multiple lines of social division. One critical component of capability within a testing environment is preparedness, and opportunities for that are frequently disproportionate from the offset.

(2) I do not believe that (1) can become true. Particularly, as there is little reason to think that a meritocracy would have any less vested interest than a democracy does; those in power like to retain power and pass it to their own progeny and would have prevailing influence over the testing process itself. And there would be even less recourse, I should think.

Regarding intertwining of politics and academia

(1) I think political leaders could stand to be more broadly educated, or to consult more heavily with those with expertise. But I do not think that melding politics and academia together is the sole or best way to do that.

(2) No. What I am concerned about is that academia as a collective field would become synonymous with politics. That is not what is happening with lobbies. Lobbies are not academic institutions, but political organizations attempting to bend academia to their interests. They represent a partial blending; imagine what the result would be if you mix the two even further.