NSW has already tried governance by CEO aka consultants under the former Nick Greiner Liberal Government, remember.

It didn't work. Gary Sturgess was given free reign to implement running government departments and businesses along private sector lines.

The amount of spending on consultants to implement business models was huge adn comprehensive. Greiner in fact DID implement the consultants' recommendations and he himself being from teh business world was not conned either. It all failed.

No need to repeat failed history.

There is an alternative way forward though at all tiers of government.
It is a model based upon the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity. decentralsiation is one key, another is regulation of banking and finance and public ownership of key essentials for living such as electricity, water, gas, oil; and even nationalisation of all airports. Then divestiture laws to break up the Coles and Woolies near duopoly in many suburban and regional centres. Small and medium businesses would flourish as a result of divestiture laws and changes to commercial law. There is more:
http://www.dlpnsw.com/

Don Allan says:

"Not a power grabber or spin doctor myself, I predict, nevertheless, that if politicians don’t start doing what they are supposed to, work for the community rather than themselves, sometime in the future, society will demand changes that will make our current democratic system more meaningful."

What a cost-effective proposal Don offers as a counter to the declining influence of the mainstream media in moulding public opinion. Instead of having to invest in the gathering of news compatible with the line they wish to push, these media outlets will only have to concentrate on controlling the reportage of the outcome of the unscrutinisable phone polls. Brilliant! What a fantastic way to tell us what we all think, and translate it into action on the spot, with us 'electing' a CEO in the process.

It is good to see Don accepts the expertise of the Australian Electoral Commission as referees. "I can see the scene now as the Electoral Commission’s Master of Ceremonies introduces the BIG GIG finalists ..." Results of the phone polls could be presented in a Virtual Tallyroom format of the like of that used at the 2007 elections. You know, where they were able to hold back publication of the total numbers of pre-poll and postal votes issued until after most of the vote was in. Avoided little embarrassments like it becoming transiently apparent that more vote claims may have been made in some electoral Divisions than enrolments recorded. Clever, that.

"One change in this more meaningful democracy will be that a Chief Economic Officer (CEO) not a Prime Minister, will lead a non-party government."

Narrowly avoiding voicing the heresy that Parliament should be where policy should be debated and decided, Don neatly sidesteps the Constitution in just one move, instead of the interminable double-speak multi-step of the past century's politicians, to institute a Big Business republic.

It now seems unlikely that our first CEO would be named Trujillo, or even Switkowsky, but what if he were named Corleone? Would we have to address him as Don?

OK OLO that's it. I've patiently put up with a barrage of nonsense from AGW delusionists. I've even endured an occasional piece by Leon Bertrand. But if this is the kind of tripe that is now regarded as worth publishing, I'm outta here.

Unfortunately, Mr Allan's prescription for our election of "PM as CEO" is more likely to produce a dictatorship. Popular acclaim of a single individual - whatever the means to elect him or her - coupled with the freedom to pick their own team, can have only the one result.

The missing element, of course, is that business CEOs report to a Board of Directors, and unless there are similar checks and balances in any evolution of our present farrago of half-baked notions of what government should be, his proposals would not be an improvement.

Which is a shame. The idea of a political version of Australian Idol is compelling.

What should it be called?

Australian Idle? no, too easy.

The Biggest Schmoozer?

Big Brother...?

Uh oh.

Pericles,
I'm in full agreement with you the idea is badly thought through.

JCurtin,

Wow the DLP still exists see evolutionists, dinosaurs do still exist.
At meetings do you play "where's Mac ...he didn't come back!"

You must be joking. Government by big brother and the biggest loser. F that. You must be terminally niave to think that these shows are not rigged. They get the winners they want and they manipulate the stupid viewers to think they made a choice. Those with vested interests would be able to corrupt such an idea so easily and with no repercussions that it is just asking for an authoritarian dictatorship.

Not to mention your facile genuflecting to economists. The biggest bunch of wreckers and charlatans in existence. Your faith in economics is sad and in light of the current financial crisis supremely pigheaded and blind.

We should be heading in a more democratic and participatory direction not some sci fi future of max headroom television ruling the world. There are plenty of ways to use technology to make politics more inclusive and democratic. Voting in popularity contests is not likely to be one of them.

Politics is not a competition it is a system of running the country for the benefit of its people. Competition ALWAYS involves losers and I dont think the turning of a portion of the population into losers is good for our society.

After reading your article again I am beginning to think it is satirical. No one could be this dumb. Maybe I was the dumb one for taking it seriously. I hope so. :)