Perhaps politics needs to borrow something from industry. Every piece of code that we write goes through a rigorous process of Quality Assurance ( QA ). Till now QA has meant a rigorous process of human resources manually trying to break the code in all ways. In eBay, there is roughly one QA person for every two developers. Which means that for every two persons who write code, they need one person to ensure that he's doing a good job. What a waste of resource in verifying the same things over and over again!
Of late, there is a move towards Quality Engineering ( QE ) as against QA. As a developer, we know better what are the functionalities the code provides or does not provide. If we write an automated suite that ensures that the functionality the developer intends is never broken / sends out an alert the moment it is, we ensure that future developers need not worry about unwittingly breaking a piece of code I wrote, by making a change elsewhere. This is especially important in big enterprises. Of course, you automate repetitive tasks, and keep humans to do the more intelligent quality assurance required. That way your QA : dev ratio can reduce to as low as 1:6 or even more.
In politics and government, e-governance should be able to reduce the number of government hierarchies required, and leave them free to do more constructive work. As of today, the press works as the most effective Quality Assurance group, but if the problems could be detected by the government 'before' it 'releases' schemes & fails to follow up on them, we would save a lot of taxpayers money.
We need a thirdparty standards organization that can help the government to proactively minimize "production bugs" as we'd call it.