Often, in business, when a significant task is undertaken, there is an RFP — request for proposals. Before the request is made, however, the business must make a clear statement of what is being requested — the deliverables.
In our current political model, the RFP is the call for an election. The very big difference is that the potential contractor (political party) makes the statement of deliverables and the tools (philosophy) they will use — not the business owner. This all happens before there is a clear understanding of what specific issues are involved.
The winning contractor is given the keys and away they go, which includes defining problems that best fit with their bag of tools. Actions and procedures of the contractor are not easily shared with the business owner, who does indeed pay the bills.
Those contractors who did not win the bid but are on the short list will do what they can to interfere with the winning contractor.
Now, imagine yourself in a fantasy land, where the company requests involvement from regional representatives who would like to work together in developing solutions to a series of ever-changing problems. The first task would be to grasp a thorough understanding of the problem. Where expertise did not exist within the group, others with that skill set would be brought in.
The conflict of interest issue and need for unlimited power is very large, but to some degree has been addressed in other companies.
The term “official opposition” does not speak well for a governance model, the task of which is to run the business of the country.
We are all shareholders of the company — how do you want your chosen contractors to function? For your home renovations, how would you want your contractors to behave?