The models that we are using are wrong, and/or outdated.
Some claim that the Constitution is a good model. The Constitution is based on the concept of Manifest Destiny and the Discovery Doctorine. The basis of the Constitution are oppression and suppression. Hard to get continuing "good" out of those premises.
Democracy is outmoded on two counts. Democracy is a form of conflict resolution, basically a battle until on view point "wins", or a compromise is reached. A compromise is as much as a lose/lose solution as it is a win/win solution. Democracy does not encourage collaboration and consultation, which usually result in better, more creative outcomes, often win/win, withoout loss. The other fatal flaw of democracy is that empowers ignorance as well as knowledge. Combine that with entropy, or the fact that ignorance is easier than knowledge, and you'll see that democracy "dumbs down". It's like supply and demand curves: through time, as problems become increasingly difficult, requiring more knowledge to solve, the amount of available knowledge is dropping. Eventually the graph lines intersect. We are at that intersection and maybe beyond.
The economic systems that are usually discussed as possible aternatives to each other are likewise flawed, and become increasingly flawed as time passes. Adam Smith, author of Wealth of Nations left out large tracts of the economy. For instance, unmarried and childless, Adam Smith moved in with his mother while he wrote so she could cook and clean for him, yet he didn't take into account the "home economy", which is a huge generator of value. As one business consultant asks business executives, "how productive would your work force be if it were not potty trained?" Smith also largely left out "the commons" which is the most creative sector of the economy. Smith's picture of economics was based on all the rage at the time, Newtonian physics. "Science" was mechanical. As economic studies and theorizing progressed, there was the pressure to make it "scientific", explainable with equations and curves around axes. If things didn't fit equations, they were dropped out, sometimes with the apologies of the economist, sometimes with simple disdain for non-science. Leaving things out of a system makes the system incorrect. Capitalism, socialism, and communism are all based on the same bad and incomplete premises and have grown, as simple mechanical systems, which they are not. While Newton was inspired by an apple dropping from a tree (I know, a myth), economists need to be inspired by watching the apple grow and evolve (which does not mean that an economy needs to grow) All of our current economic models require growth, whether humans thrive or not. We need to build an economy that makes humans thrive whether the economy grows or not, for, indeed, an economy has limits to growth because it is embedded in society, which is embedded in a planet with finite input (in any period) and absolutely finite sinks.