The chief reform that I’d insist upon would be the devolution of formal sovereignty to each village and city. Whether they’d choose to (initially) still manage their affairs in common through a private firm whence there once was a government, that is for them to decide.
Once each village/city is free to leave, I’d try out the following system:
- Universal suffrage, but votes are transferable. You are given e piece of paper entitling you to cast one vote, and you’re than free to do what you like with it.
- Staggered elections. I think it is stupid to elect all seats at the same time. I’d rather elect a seat each week until the full assembly has been reshuffled.
- All power concentrated in one hand: some consul of kinds. He is elected by the Assembly and can be deposed only by the Assembly electing someone else in his stead. He is solely responsible for promulgating and enforcing all law. He can appoint his own successor, but he too can be deposed by the Assembly. This assembly does nothing else but elect the consul.
- British system of legislation: there’s no constitution or higher law, no bill of rights, nothing that cannot be formally changed by a simple law. Tradition and precedents make for better protection of rights that scraps of paper, and the government is free to evolve.
I could go on and discuss why I think each of these point would improve the dynamics of state but I’ll briefly focus only on the first one. Limiting suffrage will make for an armed revolution sooner or later, and that would cripple an economy. The trump card of mass democracy is that it prevents such violent revolutions.
Making the vote transferable achieves the same goal (and even much more reliably) while in practice limiting the electorate to the richest fellows or those who feel strongly about some point. Once votes are transferable, the intensity of one’s opinion is factored in. Nowadays both I who feel very strongly against some law and some other bloke who is only mildly for it are given the same power in deciding the outcome. If I can buy his vote, I’d get the chance to express my strong belief. The changes that would ensue in lobbying and bribes would also be massive (no time to discuss those).
In practice, I feel this system would make for a Venetian style of government: a powerful head of State who is free to act but must be accountable to the top percentile of the population. Venice did rather well for itself, if you ask me.