Could the Isle of Man become more democratic by following the example of a remote republic in the middle of the Pacific Ocean? One MHK, at least, thinks that it might.

In Kiribati, formerly a British colonial outpost known as the Gilbert Islands, the equivalent of Chief Minister is directly elected by the voting public.

This happens in a separate national poll following the general election for the 44 members of the parliament.

Candidates for head of government are nominated by the parliament from amongst its membership. Once popularly elected the leader can be removed by the parliament via a vote of no confidence, which triggers a fresh general election.

Meanwhile, in the middle of the Irish Sea the next Chief Minister will be chosen by the House of Keys with no input from the public. Here administrations emerge from a closed process like someone showing up on a blind date.

This creates a democratic disconnect, putting government at a distance from the people and discouraging engagement, understanding and accountability. When the system produces governments that literally no-one has voted for, there is no foundation of public buy-in for the new regime.

The absence of a clear line of transmission between voters and a detached executive looks like a major flaw. But it does help to provide a comfortably free-range operating environment for politicians.

Tynwald has so far paid little heed to the alleged democratic deficit but now one member is trying to move the issue up the agenda.

Prompted by her participation in a course on parliamentary governance, Garff MHK Daphne Caine is floating the Pacific model as something for the island to consider.

At her request the law professor Dr Peter Edge has produced a paper on the Kiribati system. He will be sharing his thoughts on this, and the role of Chief Minister, in a free public lecture to be hosted by University College Isle of Man at the Nunnery on Wednesday, December 18, starting at 6pm.

So is the direct election of the Chief Minister the way forward for the Isle of Man? Maybe, but there are a number of potential pitfalls.

One old fashioned fear is that the public might be persuaded to hand power to an irresponsible populist or reckless demagogue, if you can imagine a Manx version of Boris Johnson or Donald Trump.

The ’wrong’ outcome is a risk in any free system, but the contention that the people cannot be trusted to make the right choice is an argument against democracy itself.

A more credible concern is that a nationally-elected Chief Minister could claim a stronger mandate than the rest of Tynwald put together, and be tempted to override the role of parliament. Resistance from the membership could create constitutional conflict and deadlock.

The dysfunction that can arise from competing claims to superior democratic legitimacy has been demonstrated recently in the United Kingdom, in ’The People versus Parliament’ impasse over Brexit.

The Kiribati model attempts to maintain a balance between the government leader and the parliament through the provision for a vote of no confidence, acting as a restraint on both parties.

There are also potential issues with running two elections close together, the first for parliamentary membership and the second for Chief Minister, which could lead to an outbreak of voting fatigue.

And, if the focus of the second round was on national issues, as might be expected, the culture of the first round - the House of Keys general election - could become even more parochial than it is already.

That would be a retrograde outcome. MHKs have important national functions as well as their local responsibilities and we need to hear less, not more, about parish pump matters.

Of course the direct election of the Chief Minister is not the only way of bridging the gap that exists between the public and executive government in the Isle of Man.

Party politics have never taken off here to the extent of dominating the system, but the island’s demographics are changing and a number of parties will be bidding for greater influence at the next general election. It remains to be seen whether policy can become more potent than personality in small constituencies where voters tend to know the candidates.

In the meantime the current process for electing the Chief Minister excludes the public completely and is seriously lacking in transparency in an age when everyone agrees that transparency is a good thing.

The people of the island took part in the last general election, on September 22, 2016, with no idea who was in the running to be the next Chief Minister or how their votes might affect the future direction of the nation.

The three candidates for the top job were only revealed to the public on September 27, five days after the polls closed. They published their manifestos two days later, and on October 4 Tynwald elected a new Chief Minister.

The timescale was so short that the nominees and their supporters must have been lined up and making preparations well before polling day, out of sight of the voters.

The sequencing was more like a charade than an exercise in open democracy.

Would it be possible, perhaps, to find some way of letting the public in on the game and require chief ministerial ambitions to be declared before the general election?

That could create groupings of Keys candidates around prospective government leaders and their policies, and provide a much needed national focus for the election campaign.

Constituents could actually ask candidates who they would support for Chief Minister and take the answer into account when casting their votes. This extremely relevant question cannot be asked under the present arrangement, which keeps the contenders under wraps.

Who knows? It might just be the beginning of proper national politics in the Isle of Man.

None of the potential solutions to the problem of the democratic disconnect is without practical complications. But that is no excuse for ignoring the problem.

It would be very strange indeed if members of Tynwald, who profess such strong support for the principle of democracy, were not prepared to at least look into this fundamental issue of good governance.