The impulse to establish an organizing mechanism - basic codes of conduct and an expression of the collective intent as to what conduct would not be tolerated - was, I think, an admirable one. There's a real benefit to the sense of community and order which such an expression can engender. But the process was from the beginning carried out by a self-selected group of people whose influence was always outsized compared to those of us who were introduced to the idea later on. The result is not my favored form of government, not in any way; but it was that which was most palatable to the majority of our members, and once they all agreed to vote - there we were.
I'm of your mind, I think. Those members ought now to be asked whether they believe this experiment has been beneficial, or ... otherwise. In my opinion, the government has largely been used to ensure that those in power and their friends are able to impose their will on the rest of us without really inconveniencing themselves about explaining their positions and convincing the public to fall in line behind them. It is in a technical sense a democracy, but a democracy in which a vote is generally all but a show. Among the members of the Council there is vanishing little ideological diversity, and they have no incentive - no pressure exerted by the structure they invented, shockingly enough - to allow any variance on that front. The Jury, I believe, serves an important purpose. But the framework in which it operates is at once excessive and supremely ineffective.
As for what we ought to do about it - under the strictures of our Constitution, as you've pointed out, there is no explicit mechanism for dissolution. It could be argued that a two-thirds vote of the citizenry would do it. It's not an ideal solution, given the way our votes have often been handled. One alternative - simply ceasing to recognize its authority - is even less appealing to me, personally. But it may be the most effective method of bringing about drastic change.