Quick aside to answer your point: yes I agree that it's about "what you can change" re: discrimination. We can't make women desire being breadwinners more than men do, but we can allow those who happen to desire being breadwinners to do so without barriers.

There's a government whose job is to maximize an objective function. For simplicity let's say it's the sum of the logarithms of all individuals' annual consumption, for each year's objective function.

People will vote to change the objective function: e.g. if we think inequality is too bad, we vote to tweak the logarithm so that we increase the base of the logarithm. That makes the function's rate of increase sharply decrease in each person's annual consumption, i.e. it's more worthwhile to increase the consumption of the poorest. Another example: the environment starts to degrade because officials are chasing the objective function without regard to the environment. Vote to add environmental measures into the function.

All government organizations and officials are logged and monitored by an accountability office. Government officials are paid competitively, on par with or greater than most industries (excluding law, finance, consulting, maybe big tech). Their pay also tracks the objective function. In exchange they cannot be corrupt: corruption is punished by a maximum of life imprisonment. Any citizen may review the logs of any official. National security concerns of course will be accounted for, so I can't look into CIA files for example.

In the government hierarchy, higher-ranked officials are in charge of firing/hiring lower-ranked ones. The guys on top, the C-suite executives: they can be fired by the citizens with a special event requiring a high majority of the votes, and a good reason such as sharp declines in the objective function without any plausible reason for it other than incompetence. It's like the shareholders firing C-suite guys.

Officials will not be required to make charismatic appeals to the citizens like the politicians of today do. They should be judged purely on the metrics of their office, e.g. objective function stuff.

Being a government official (management-rank or management-track) should be an elite job, on par with investment banking, big law, big tech, consulting, with slightly lower pay but much more public respect and accolades.

Critics say it sounds elitist: but ever since when did "elite" mean "bad"? It's precisely because they're "elite" that they should be your CEOs, your CFOs. You don't want a lazy incompetent person to be your leader anyway. The remarkable mental faculties of elite humans should be bent to serve the interests of all humans, and that's what the objective function is meant to do.