Everyone senses that the current political system is creaking. Campaigns have become marketing shows, leaders are chosen based on charisma rather than competence, and policies change every four years like a poorly spinning roulette wheel. But the problem runs deeper: it's not the people who are failing, it's the system itself.
The question isn't whether democracy is bad. The question is: does this model still fit today's world?
More and more people feel: no.
The problem: we choose leaders as if they were influencers
In almost no crucial sector do we choose leaders the way we do in politics.
- Not in aviation.
- Not in healthcare.
- Not in science.
- Not on ships.
- Not in fire services or defense.
In those fields, leadership is about:
- craftsmanship
- integrity
- experience
- stability
- ethics
- reliability
- long-term vision
In politics, it's about:
- slogans
- campaigns
- image building
- marketing budget
- polarization
- short term
- winning votes
That difference is exactly why the current model is stalling.
How then? A modern selection system for leadership
Here is an alternative that works in companies, sectors, and countries that do remain stable:
1. Selection based on competence + character
Not on popularity.
Criteria:
- emotional stability
- integrity (tested, not proclaimed)
- experience with complex decision-making
- long-term vision
- servant leadership
- no conflicts of interest
You choose a prime minister like you choose a pilot. Nobody votes for the "nicest pilot" on a transatlantic flight.
2. No more political parties
Parties create tribes → tribes create conflict → conflict creates framing → framing destroys substance.
Without parties you get:
- less polarization
- fewer campaigns
- less short-term thinking
- more individual leadership
3. An independent selection committee
Consisting of:
- scientists
- mayors/regional administrators
- judges
- randomly selected citizens (citizen jury model)
- ethics experts
They select leaders the way a Supervisory Board chooses a director: professionally, verifiable, and substantively.
4. Terms of 6-8 years + annual assessment by a citizen panel
No four-yearly election chaos. Instead:
- stability
- room to implement policy
- annual feedback
- adjustment based on performance, not talk
5. Transparency as a hard prerequisite
All meeting documents, decisions, and interests public. No backrooms. No lobby dependency.
Transparency kills framing. Framing can only exist in shadow.
6. Separation of roles
This already works in modern organizations:
- Visionary leader (direction)
- Operational leader (execution)
- Ethics & quality (control)
Cross-checking without internal war.
7. Power as escrow model
The leader has a mandate, but power lies with an independent body that can intervene in cases of:
- fraud
- abuse
- incompetence
- extremism
- dangerous decisions
Stable, without dictatorship or chaos.
The result: mature governance
This model delivers:
- more calm
- more quality
- less manipulation
- less campaign show
- less polarization
- more integrity
- more long term
- more humanity
It resembles: aviation + science + Scandinavian governance culture + self-organizing teams.
And that works.
Conclusion: the problem is not leadership — it's the way we choose leaders
If we select leaders the way we select pilots, surgeons, and captains, we get:
- stability
- reliability
- vision
- quality
- peace in the system
Democracy doesn't need to go, but the mechanism by which we choose leaders must mature.
The world is changing. Our leadership system must change with it.