Dear Editor, My worry with such a set-up is the delay regarding decisions. Unless the committee is fully constituted (the acceptable number at least), then decisions cannot be taken whereas with a CEO, they take decisions there and then with the Board providing oversight and guidance. It is essential for whatever model to be profitable or in the least self sufficient. It makes no sense socially for everyone to be happy without the ability to improve, as no situation is permanent.

So, perhaps (there should be) a new model borrowing a bit of a profit-making company and a cooperative. A head of state can be an honorary member, for instance, in the UK, France, and Israel where the Prime Minister is in charge of all government business with the Queen and president playing a ceremonial role. And how about the Hong Kong model?Winky, Kampala----------------------------------------The structure of a company is built to maximise profits whatever the cost unlike the state where the CEO has to take certain decisions for the greater good of the people.  I would instead propose that the state is run like a cooperative where decisions are taken by a committee, like the Soviet Union model. This means that no individual can wield undue influence or power. The premise of a successful business is in self-accountability. I admire the PEER review model which President Kagame applies. The last decade has seen the collapse of several multinational companies, which we thought were the most well run and yet the countries they are based in have beaten all odds and progressed using a similar model to the one I suggested above; that is; Sweden and Finland. Linus Ndabukiye, Kampala(Reactions to Carlos Mwizerwa’s article, "Should the 21st Century state run like a company?,” The New Times, January 24, 2013)