Some people are going to be inherently extremely ambitious. Those people will compete/cooperate and somebody's going to come out on top.
Supposing you establish a system explicitly designed to stop this from happening, you need someone to enforce that system. Congratulations, you just created a role for the ambitious people to fight over.
For me, the main takeaway of the book was that we should stop revering consultants/MBAs and their process.
An election is basically a popularity contest. Winning a popularity contests does not guarantee competence, reliability or even correctness of opinion.
We've got a couple of centuries of evidence that private individuals who stand to feel the effects of their choices are much better at conserving and rationing resources than elected officials.
If you make a list of the horrors of history and rank them from worst to mildest, you'll find that public officials (even in democracies) are much scarier than rich people operating private concerns.
50%+1 liking the way someone talks doesn't mean that the person is fit to manage the whole economy for four years.
I'd be quite happy if governments had less power. People aren't threatened by rouge business magnates in the same way as they are by rogue public policy.
A few years of bad public policy does much more damage than any businessman can in a decade. Voters & governments are seriously not good at technical questions like resource allocation. Businessmen will stop doing something if it isn't working, voters usually push on regardless long after it obviously makes no sense to do so.