Illustration: Edd Aragon Not that they share particular principles; just the fact of having some. This makes them beacons of sweet reason amid a muddy rabble of card-sharps and horse-traders. Yet where are they are now, this backboned handful? Are they wreathed in the eternal sunshine of popular adoration? Hardly. As the political divide vanishes beneath the frantic rush for the middle ground, our politicians feel the need to manufacture difference (or perhaps our demand of it). And this pretend-game rewards only those skilled in soap opera and farce. Hence the absurdist, amped-up Punch and Judy show we've seen of late, in which Gillard's emotionally botoxed Judy is repeatedly bludgeoned by Abbott's big-eared Punch, waving his outsize verbal slapstick and spouting manic abuse.

Against this backdrop it's pretty easy to look statesmanlike. But that the word, statesmanship is suddenly everywhere suggests, too, that it's a quality we now crave. The word implies a certain Jeffersonian dignity. More than just manners and suits; more even than bearing and eloquence, much as we primates read nobility into those. There is a palpable yearning for an end to the idiotics; for someone sane, broad, reasoned, purposeful, decent and wise. In short, a leader with a sense of goodness. Enter the Turnbulls, Malcolm and Lucy both. For if I'm right about them (and I'd like to be) they could be our Clintons. Or maybe our Kennedys. Only under such leadership can one imagine an Australia of which to be genuinely proud. I don't mean the usual Aussie pride in our big houses and footy scores. I mean pride for the 21st century. Only under such leadership can one imagine an Australia of which to be genuinely proud. I don't mean the usual Aussie pride in our big houses and footy scores. I mean pride for the 21st century.

Pride in our reformed, ultra-smart education system (I'm hypothesising here); in our skilled and creative citizenry, our expertly husbanded resources, our bustling and lucrative green-energy sector and our engaged, deliberative democracy. I know. Right now few futures look less probable. There is a crisis in public trust. Look around. Why would you trust someone who couldn't carry off a night's babysitting without disgracing himself with your super, your taxes or your climate? Turnbull is one of the few I'd trust to have a go. Climate change, bike lanes, gay marriage, anti-censorship; many people think Turnbull joined the wrong party. That can happen. Like putting on the wrong shoes in the morning, you just accidentally go right instead of left. But in fact, it's not about which party. It's about why party. Should there even be parties? Do we need them? For, say I'm right about Turnbull, say he did turn out to be strong and decent, and say he were elected prime minister; he'd still have Parliament to deal with, and the reigning game of swapsies at recess. I'll give you your education budget line for my union-buster. Your mate's liquor law for my mate's coal mine.

This, in combination with the whip system, undermines the very idea of policy, and ensures that those with least moral backbone rise highest. The party system breeds career politicians who pupate as political staffers and emerge into safe-seat politics with no skills higher than branch-stacking and rung-jumping. Leadership qualities? Ma-a-a-ate. "There is almost nowhere else in our national life," noted Turnbull in a recent speech, "where the incentives to be untruthful or to purposefully mislead are so great, and the adverse consequences of such behaviour so modest. "The adversarial system ... is not working effectively ... Important issues are being overlooked, barely discussed and where they are, routinely misrepresented." We all nod, sagely. But what to do?

The newDemocracy Foundation has some ideas. The think tank, founded by Luca Belgiorno Nettis, is supported by a range of remarkable people (including Lucy Turnbull but also Fred Chaney, Geoff Gallop, Nick Greiner, David Yencken, Cheryl Kernot and John Brogden). When Belgiorno Nettis fondly quotes the classic Sydney graffito – "don't vote, it only encourages them" – he's serious. New Democracy offers models from full-on "demarchy", where decisions are made by a network of randomly selected citizen juries, to an Athenian-style citizen legislature, also selected by lottery. Democracy without elections? That's big. It also proposes a discouragement to career politicians, reducing public funding to parties (from a whopping $4.78 a vote!) if they field too many former staffers as candidates. But this is about as likely to get up as the republic – which is still seen as a Turnbull failure, evidence (along with "utegate") of his lack of political nous.

This is just one of three albatrosses around Turnbull's neck. The second is his great wealth. But both these are really pluses. Political nous just means "thinks like a politician" which surely we'd be delighted to lose. And wealth? Well, at least it makes him seriously difficult to corrupt. Albatross three goes to the love thing. The Liberal Party insists on seeing Turnbull's popularity with the non-Liberal masses as a threat. Had they half a brain between them they would seize the opportunity, make Turnbull leader tomorrow and sweep into power the first consensus government for decades. Loading Still, why risk consensus when Punch is having such a time of it, playing the toxic divide?

Elizabeth Farrelly blogs at leflaneur.mobi