Sometimes I wonder if we just have too much democracy. What if we could move more to an indirect democracy? (I use the word 'we' loosely as I could be talking a

Sometimes I wonder if we just have too much democracy. What if we could move more to an indirect democracy? (I use the word 'we' loosely as I could be talking about any modern democracy, not a specific nation) What if instead of electing the leader of a country, we elected the group that hired the leader? Like electing the board of a company rather than shareholders voting directly for a CEO. This group would be perpetual campaigners, always out and about to understand the needs of the community. This is a full time job and a skill set that is quite different from managing a high level team or creating legislation. They would relay these to the President and discuss issues regularly with them. The President would be a normal employee in a sense (in the way that a CEO is a 'normal employee'). They wouldn't have to campaign for their role, nor run for re-election. They would be appointed by the elected group and also removed by them should their performance be poor, or the dominant ideology of the group change. I'm not mad enough to think this would be a perfect process. There would still be lobbying and deal making but my hope would be that it is one step removed from the leaders themselves. Let them actually do their job with some dignity rather than forcing them to always be running for the next election and being trashed by opponents in the media. Can we normalise the jobs of our leaders to encourage higher caliber applicants? What if we could have a leader that wasn't hated by 49% of the population before they even started?