An English translation of David Van Reybrouck’s book Against Elections was recently published. The book is blurbed by, among others, J. M. Coetzee, the South African novelist who was the recipient of the 2003 Nobel Prize in Literature:
Choosing our rulers by popular vote has failed to deliver true democratic government: that seems to be the verdict of history unfolding before our eyes. Cogently and persuasively, David Van Reybrouck pleads for a return to selection by lot, and outlines a range of well thought out plans for how sortitive democracy might be implemented. With the popular media and the political parties fiercely opposed to it, sortitive democracy will not find it easy to win acceptance. Nonetheless, it may well be an idea whose time has come.
With attention from such a luminary it is not surprising that the book was reviewed in several elite media outlets. As Coetzee predicts, the reception is quite cold. The warmest one is Andrew Anthony’s lukewarm response in The Guardian. Anthony concludes:
[W]hen, say, a sortition of the public recommends an expensive transport system that doesn’t work out or cuts a defence system that is later needed, […] where and how is that frustration registered? You can’t vote out the public. One job that elected politicians fulfil is as democratic punchbags. It’s not edifying or necessarily productive, but it may be essential.
Perhaps sortition or partial sortition could be applied in very specific cases. But we also need to look at reviving elections and renewing our belief in them. They remain a vital part of the democratic process. Not its only part, to be sure, but they are an all too rare example of mass engagement. Let’s not vote them out just yet.
The Financial Times‘s John Lloyd takes a harder line. Lloyd patiently explains to Van Reybrouk that he completely misunderstands the founders of modern electoralism when he accuses them of aristocratic tendencies.
Thomas Jefferson believed in “a natural aristocracy among men”, the grounds for which “are virtue and talents”: one of the proofs Van Reybrouck adduces that the venerated founders sought a reconstructed aristocracy. This is the thinnest part of the essay. Feudal aristocracy is exclusive, and its members enforced exclusion; democrats, even “upper bourgeois” ones, can act exclusively, but their ideology mandates openness to all comers. Abraham Lincoln, the 16th US president and the most famed, was the son of a struggling small farmer; since the second world war, Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Johnson, Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Obama came from the lower and at times impoverished middle classes. There is no evidence that the founding fathers thought the lower classes — apart from women and slaves — necessarily devoid of virtue or talent even if, then as now, they recognised such characteristics more readily among their own kind.
Lloyd then says that Van Reybrouk’s proposal is one in a “swelling wave” of such ideas, which so far remain in the wings. But things may change: if the Brexit vote pushes the natural aristocracy to buttress the institution of elections, he says, a president Trump may convince it that there is a need to look beyond elections for additional tools to serve their purposes.
The Times has chosen to put the bulk of its review behind a paywall, but still manages to indicate to its unpaying readers that Van Reybrouk’s book presents “a theory that seems almost certainly false and careful analysis shows is indeed false.” But, then again, maybe it’s the familiar theory that elections are democratic that fits this description.
Reviews of David’s book (and/or essay) have now been published in the Times, Sunday Times, Guardian, Financial Times and Democratic Audit. There is widespread agreement that the rise in populism and the shock result of the Brexit referendum calls for improved ways of consulting public opinion and the term “sortition” is now entering the lexicon of political theorists and journalists, This is a marked change from only a few years ago when I organised a sortition panel at the Manchester political theory workshop and nobody (including the convenors) had the first idea what it was, apart from a couple of people who had stumbled on it in Ranciere). So us Kleroterians can give ourselves a little pat on the back.
But how best to capitalise on this opportunity? Most of the hostility to David’s book appears to arise from it’s provocative title, Against Elections which, as Yoram has pointed out (to his disgust) is not even the author’s position:
“[van Reybrouck-style sortition] is the way to reinvigorate the tired democracy that is so dear to our heart – to return to that golden age when the masses knew their proper place following their leaders’ lead and adopting their leaders’ priorities.”
Or, as John Keane acknowledges: “there is a deep prevarication in his work about whether or not elected legislatures should be replaced in their entirety by a ‘parliament of allotted citizens’.” (John Keane, Democratic Audit).
The reviewers, however, focused on the implications of the polemical title (both Times reviews adopting the “bonkers” epithet):
“to use [sortition] to replace elected representatives altogether, or even largely, would be impractical. . . When the author moves from his principled arguments and practical examples to start sketching out how a constitution based on sortition might look, the eyes of the reader begin to glaze over.” (Danny Finkelstein, The Times)
“Van Reybrouck’s solution, which strikes me as bonkers, reaches back to the Ancient Greeks. . . Van Reybrouck’s book is basically the political equivalent of a book suggesting that everybody should wear corduroy hats, or that we should all go back to speaking Welsh.” (Dominic Sandbrook, Sunday Times)
Or, to put the argument more posititively:
“Perhaps sortition or partial sortition could be applied in very specific cases. But we also need to look at reviving elections and renewing our belief in them. They remain a vital part of the democratic process. Not its only part, to be sure, but they are an all too rare example of mass engagement. Let’s not vote them out just yet.” (Anthony Andrews, Guardian)
Quite. So, if only for tactical reasons, let’s cut the hyperbolic calls for the end of elections and seize this wonderful opportunity for sortition as a way of improving democracy. When Vernon Bogdanor reviewed my first book, The Party’s Over, in THES he trashed it on account of its polemical title (and thesis) but had come round to the notion of sortition as a supplement to electoral democracy when he reviewed my second book, A People’s Parliament, in TLS.
Of course the call for moderation will be rejected by the tiny minority of armchair revolutionaries on this blog who seek to inspire the masses to rise up and overthrow “electoralism” and replace it with “real democracy”. They view their role in this great historical dialectic as the revolutionary vanguard leaders who supply the catechism and slogans necessary for this exercise in consciousness raising. The fact that they were wrong the first time round doesn’t appear to have diminished their enthusiasm.
LikeLike
The Saturday Newspaper (Australia) has a semi-positive review:
LikeLike
Vice UK has an interview with Van Reybrouck. Excerpt:
LikeLike
>Should we remain or leave? If we remain, what should be changed? Migration? Income inequality? Climate? Banking rules? Nothing at all?
Unfortunately that would only work if the referendum was EU-wide. Cameron’s attempts to achieve modest reforms prior to the UK referendum ran into a brick wall. And David fails to specify exactly how a group of 1,000 people (plus unlimited online contributors) can convert their “conversation” (difficult enough to achieve in such a large group) into a finite list of preferences that doesn’t suffer from the various problems identified by public choice theorists.
LikeLike
Another review, at the LSE Review of Books:
LikeLike
I thought this was an excellent review and would highlight the following:
This parallels Surowiecki’s scepticism regarding a politics of the ‘general will’ achieved through sortition and is the principal reason that I insist that sortition should be confined to an aggregate judgment role. And the following should also be of concern to kleroterians:
The reviewer also shares my concern that sortition-only solutions (as proposed by Van Reybrouck, Cambell and Terry) will be of byzantine complexity:
LikeLike
[…] government, and to consider a nuclear dump in SA. David Van Reybrouck’s Against Elections was published in English and received some attention. In Canada and the UK sortition was discussed by academics. […]
LikeLike