Beyond the fact that it can solve your life with a few million euros, the lottery – in lower case, as a general concept – offers some interesting characteristics. One of them, and not the least, is that, in its own way, it is incorruptible. If applied well, there is no human way to circumvent it. Chance plays its role and smiles at some or others in a totally random way, regardless of whether they have spent a fortune on your organization.
Another is that, precisely for that reason, it is totally democratic. In the bass drum there is no ball with a greater chance of coming out than another.
With such a cover letter, the question we could ask ourselves is: Would a democracy work based on draws, on randomness? Would it work a “lotocracy”?
Neither the question nor the term are new. Not at all. What’s more, the Athenians – pioneers par excellence in democratic governments – considered something similar a couple of centuries before our era, when they used lots to elect some public positions. The same mechanism continued to work in certain cases and with conditions throughout history.
A formula with history… and supporters
We find it in cities of what is now Italy during the Middle Ages and also in the Renaissance; but it declined in the 17th century, with the representative systems. From a formula similar to the one we continue to use today to choose the presidents of the neighborhood communities, we moved to another that, at least on paper, aspires to choose the best for public positions.
In a 21st century with the system riddled by corruption and clientelist networks, there are, however, those who advocate recovering the philosophy of “lotocracy.” In the academic sphere we find respected voices, such as that of the philosopher Alex Guerrero, the political scientist Helene Landemore or the historian David Van Reybrouck that invite, at least, to dwell on its virtues. Beyond the tribunes and atriums of the universities there are also movements, such as Sortition Foundationwho advocate a formula that wants to place the citizen in the center of political decision making.
“By selecting representative groups of ordinary people by lottery and bringing them together in citizens’ assemblies we can break the stranglehold of career politicians on decisions and circumvent powerful vested interests,” Sortition advocatewith headquarters in the United Kingdom, Austria and the United States, before putting the finger on one of the great problems of modern democracies: the “disillusionment” and “distrust” that the political class arouses. You don’t have to go to the English-speaking world to find it. In Spain, the CIS places corruption, fraud and the behavior of public officials among the main concerns of citizens, even ahead of education or housing.
19th-century painting by Philipp Foltz depicting the Athenian politician Pericles before the Assembly.
According to the Sortition registry, there are a good handful of initiatives verified by the OECD throughout the world that, in the style of open assembliesshare or have shared their philosophy of empowering neighbors. In Spain, several are identified, such as the participatory platform Madrid decideswhich was created with the aim of presenting proposals, achieving participatory accounts and voting in citizen consultations; G1000also located in the capital; either Besaya Citizen Jurywhich proposes ways to use European funds in the Besaya basin.
Beyond the isolated initiatives that seek to reinforce the political weight of citizens, can a system recover, the lotocracythat –as collected by Leandro Omar El Eter— was conceived as “a form of government that promotes access to public office through lottery”?
Pablo Simonpolitical scientist and editor of Politikonremembers that the formula of democracy by lottery has little new, but points out the advantages that could be brought by “exploring” a hybrid model, which combines its strengths with those of the current system, as in the irish constitutional conventionformed in 2012 to discuss proposals for amendments to the nation’s charter and which included, among other members, randomly selected people. There, in Ireland, the citizens’ assembly served, for example, to address complex problems, such as the legalization of abortion.
The United Kingdom also verified its usefulness, with a forum of 108 people which, after weeks of debate, prepared a report with a battery of proposals to fight climate change.
“I find it interesting to explore this system in combination. For example, the experience of the irish constitutional convention. In those cases the draw was hybridized with the representatives. If we created more forums or spaces with citizen raffles and they were allowed a part of the management, it wouldn’t seem bad to me. Just as we have participatory budgets or the ILPsthat a part of the budget could be managed by a committee chosen by citizens at random, but with technical support. I think we should explore these types of things because it would help people feel more connected to the institutions,” reflects Simón.
The key, there is plenty, would be to find “a good design”: “Knowing how it would be done, with whom and what powers or powers would be given to that body chosen by lot. Always looking for combinations that allow correction, returning to a model in which this mechanism of direct citizen participation has a greater perception of accountability, of closeness.”
Weaknesses and strengths
The system in its purest form, of course, has its strengths and weaknesses. Among the first, the political scientist insists on its fully democratic character. “There is no electoral rule more radically democratic than the lottery and this is because basically it is assuming that everyone is competent to perform the functions of government,” he explains. What does it mean for that to be so? From the outset, it greatly complicates one of the great evils of the current system: clientelism, the networks of supporters that end up forming around those who hold political power. How to do it when someone who holds a position does so by chance and without guarantees that they will retain it?
“It is a system that is contrary to clientelism and corruption. In a draw, by definition, you don’t know who you have to govern because you don’t know who it will be,” says Simón. Another peculiarity is that it polishes the differences that now exist between parties in the electoral race, very marked by the access of the different forces to financing, which can lead to the same problem.
“Right now, in our democracy, not all political options start with the same situation of advantage or disadvantage. If you are a party and you have more access to public or company financing, you are more likely to win some selections than if you don’t. But in a lottery that disappears. That is radically democratic. The influence of economic and political powers does not filter into the system,” says the political scientist and editor of Politikon.
It’s not all advantages, of course. The “lotocracy” also has its weaknesses. For example, political motivation. The parties have a compelling reason to manage well. If they do not do so, they risk failing in support and losing elections; But… will a position that depends on chance and that does not have it in its hands to reissue its responsibilities be equally motivated? “In addition, these people do not have to be held accountable later. They can make it fatal that they do not go to elections in which you reward or punish them. It doesn’t matter. The draw will be done again.”
Another handicap is representation itself. If the door is opened at random, it is assumed that whoever comes out of the “hype” can exercise their responsibility from an affiliation with a support that is not majority nor does it reflect the sensitivity of society. “The draw does not say how many people agree with the candidate who is elected. Imagine that now I draw for the presidency of the government in Spain and it is up to the leader of the PACMA. I am electing someone to the position who does not have support in his society project at the level of others who have not been elected,” says Simón.
Hélène Landemore proposes for example, citizens’ assemblies propose changes that must later be ratified in a public vote and points to the need for additional accountability mechanisms, including laws that regulate the use of money.
There would also be other questions on the table: Who should participate in the draw, all citizens or those who have applied? Should the maxim that everyone can command and learn to manage public affairs be assumed as a starting point? It is not a minor issue. If plurality were lost, one of the great attractions of the system would also be undermined. To address the problem, the aim is to use random samples and facilitate the choice with financial incentives and measures that make it possible, for example, to relocate.
The proposal is complex, but it certainly does not start from scratch. In British Columbia, for example, randomly selected citizen assemblies have already been convened to address issues as relevant as the reform of the electoral system. The objective: to season the system with a “radically democratic” model. And, who knows, facilitate citizen reconnection with politics.
Images | Edwin Andrade (Unplash), Alejandro Garay (Unsplash), Arnaud Jaegers (Unsplash), Alex Bracken and Wikimedia
In Xataka | The eight Navarrese towns where no one wants to be mayor and are on the verge of extinction
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings