I would suggest that we RESTORE representative government.
The problem is deeper than that. All representative governments known to man ended up isolated from their voters. Once they gain enough power to control the country they don't need voters anymore; or they can keep up the pretense by limiting the choice (Tweedledum vs. Tweedledee.) This is what's happening.
This is a natural path of regression of every representative government - simply because there is nothing standing guard, protecting the voters from a megalomaniac Senator or President. As we have learned, the voters "have no standing" to question the constitutional validity of the President. The system is now self-contained; it elects the necessary front men, and it protects them from the voters, and the Supreme Court rubber-stamps all the abominations as constitutional and lawful. This is going to happen to every represenative system - and it's quite a miracle that the USA managed to last as a largely free country for as long as it did.
From this point of view it is clear that once the old set of fools is kicked out of Congress, the new set of fools will descend into the still warm seats. Often those would be completely random people, those who did nothing of value and did not risk their life and limb in the struggle. This is something we can see in Northern Africa today; one group does the fighting, and when it's all over a carefully prepared and candy-wrapped President in a $5,000 suit is delivered on an airplane and takes command. The mass of rebels may not even realize at the time what just has happened; and when they do, it's back to square one.
In other words, it all depends on personal honesty and integrity of all the leaders of the uprising. In Russia, for example, in 1917, the leaders started to fight each other practically immediately, which culminated with Stalin killing them all by 1937 and seizing complete control. In Germany Hitler had many of his old friends in SA killed when they became a liability. Infighting among the victorious is pretty bad, especially because the parties still have considerable resources under their command.
Your ideal government has to be controlled by a person or a machine that is incorruptible and wants humankind to prosper. Its logic should not be a democracy; why should the government obey if 99% of the voters vote to hang the remaining 1%? This means that the government has to be impersonal, and probably inhuman. It also has to be ruthless and efficient in doing its job. If someone is guilty of murder he is terminated, or shipped out to a faraway planet to live the rest of his very short life wandering the surface in a spacesuit, until that spacesuit fails. This is not what a human would want to do; but this is what the human collective benefits from the most.
So it would be undemocratic. A monarch may listen to his subjects, and he may even do what they petition him to do, but he doesn't have to. Would such a society be free? To some extent, yes. For example, today you are free to get into your car and drive anywhere you please. But you are not free to drive that same car into a crowd, on purpose. Same with politics. You would be free to do whatever you personally want to do - within the same limits as any free society accepts, like "your rights stop where mine begin." But there would be no freedom to attack the political system itself.
Interestingly enough, the modern China uses something that is very close to this fictional AI-driven computer government that I described. The Chinese are largely free to do business, we have evidence of that all around us, in every room. This very keyboard is probably made in China. But dare to question the Party, and disappear you will.
So, I wonder, is this the best model of a government in this century? I have no illusions, the Chinese Communist Party is not immune to the same sickness that permeated US politics. Just in last year one of party bosses was very publicly taken down. But, as a larger collective, they do have some immunity. OTOH the same party in USSR was unable to survive - and it rotted out, and died.
All in all, the government by men will be always vulnerable to the desires of those men that it employs. That's what caused anarchists to show up. They deny the need for a government; instead they promote small, fluid groups of people who associate - and disassociate - as they see fit. There is no one single theory of anarchism, so most proponents just make one up as they go.
I'm not familiar with anarchism; but democracy is inherently unstable, and monarchy/dictatorship is too much dependent on the benevolence of the monarch. IMO, the benevolent artificial monarch, one that could reason but has no human desires, would be the ideal solution. Unfortunately, it's nothing but deus ex machina at this time. It is also one step away from becoming the Skynet. If that is not in the cards, perhaps anarchism is the next best option. It is also likely to be the most free one among all. The sad fact about a large government is that once it has enough power to care for you, it can equally easily destroy you. From that point of view any strong government is undesirable. The USSR's government was ultimately strong - it took all the worker's earnings, and in exchange provided him with a fixed list of social benefits that he may or may not need. That same strong government held the life of the citizen in its hand and could destroy that life whenever it wanted.