In Leonard Wibberley's classic novel, The Mouse that Roared, a tiny nation - the Duchy of Grand Fenwick - hatches an absurd plot to attack the United States as a desperate measure to ensure its economic and political survival. In the delicious satire, nothing goes quite as planned, yet Grand Fenwick defeats the US by capturing the world's newest and most destructive bomb - one that makes the atomic bomb seem like child's play.

Despite the fantastic plot, the Duchy's David-versus-Goliath victory is not entirely accidental. Grand Fenwick's knights have the advantage of a political process that works in their favor. The decisions of their head of state, Duchess Gloriana XII, are honestly debated by leaders of the two major political parties, the Dilutionists and the Anti-Dilutionists - look it up in the book, it's worth it! Then, the matter is put to a democratic and honest vote, and the decision is executed by Her Majesty's faithful servant, Tully Bascomb.

We can laugh at the image of this motley crew forcing a superpower to its knees, but we have to admire the efficiency of a political process that is brilliantly simple and simply brilliant.

Wibberley's novel should be mandatory reading for any political science student for many reasons, though none more important and relevant than to demonstrate what a country with efficient structures of governance can accomplish. Duchess Gloriana's government makes decisions based on the interests and needs of the general population rather than a particular, narrow ideology or interest group with access to power. And the government actually implements those decisions. The simple, efficient and effective government structure that works so well in and for Grand Fenwick could not be more different from today's political reality.

US President Barack Obama moved into the White House with many ambitious goals that included fixing healthcare and Wall Street, closing Guantanamo Bay, developing energy alternatives to fight climate change and reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. Irrespective of what we may think of those goals or the president himself, his exasperation at the pathologically inept ways of the US' capital and its bruising political battles is palpable.

So, is it necessary to fix Washington before fixing the many things we are relying on Washington to fix? Is this even feasible, or (to mix some metaphors) has that ship sailed and the inmates are now running the asylum?

Take financial reform in the US as an example. Is the recent legislation - the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of June 2010 - really the best the US can come up with to address one of the worst financial crises? Can it not even agree on what constitutes bad behavior by financial institutions, and that it should try to prevent it? After the Goldman Sachs hearings, was it not obvious to everyone that things in our capital markets had gone horribly wrong? Should a bank be allowed to make a fortune betting against the very investments it advises its clients to make?

It is hard to fight the uneasy sense that the US is witnessing a significant breakdown of its state governance, especially the utter lack of civility and dignified discourse. The US' political system seems to have deteriorated to the point where the government may have lost the ability to look after its people (all of its people, that is). Perhaps it has become too detached, too convoluted and, yes, too big to be an advocate of its citizens.

Maybe bigger is not always better, and maybe Washington can learn a thing or two from some of the world's real mice, for instance, the Principality of Liechtenstein. A small country of about 36,000 people sandwiched between Switzerland and Austria, Liechtenstein has carved for itself a niche in private banking and wealth management. Over the past years, however, Liechtenstein's financial and fiduciary industries have come under global scrutiny for offering a haven for undeclared money because of their stringent privacy and bank secrecy laws.

When certain countries - the US among them - started to crack down on tax havens, triggered to no small extent by the global recession and sharply reduced tax revenues, Liechtenstein became the focus of unwelcome attention. Its political leaders realized that this was not a war they could win and, therefore, they embarked upon a gutsy new transparency strategy, culminating in the "Liechtenstein Declaration" of March 2009. Cynics were quick to ask whether this new policy would be implemented, or whether it would remain just a fancy piece of paper with lofty goals.

Only time will give that answer, but one test occurred when in February 2010 a Swiss newspaper ran a sting operation with two undercover reporters who entered several banks in Switzerland, Germany, Austria and Liechtenstein, claiming they had inherited 750,000 Swiss francs and asking to open "black", undeclared bank accounts. Liechtenstein was the only country where neither of its two "tested" banks was willing to take on the new clients. The undercover journalists were advised to do themselves a favor and seek a good tax adviser to help them declare the money, rather than live a life in fear of being caught.

We should take note of Liechtenstein's effective reaction to new and significant challenges, and its implementation of necessary, painful and not always popular changes. Political leaders can actually make decisions in the national interest and ensure that those decisions are implemented in letter and spirit, despite vocal and powerful opposition. If the US has lost its ability to accomplish this, then it may need to go back to the drawing board and challenge some of the sacred cows of its political system, including the distorting role of money in politics or even the two-party system, where the degree of paralysis is directly proportional to the amount of hollow bipartisan pronouncements.

In The Mouse that Roared, Tully Bascomb speaks some wise words: "Victory sometimes carries more responsibilities than gains. That is because it marks the return of conscience." The US certainly has many victories in its history, but it seems that in recent times it has fallen short in some of its responsibilities - to itself and to others. And maybe, just maybe, it could learn a thing or two from the mice of this world.

The author is a member of the board of the Liechtenstein Foundation for State Governance, a foundation dedicated to quality state governance through the transfer of know-how and tools to many countries.