In my article Democracy through sortition I mentioned that sortition is a tool and not an end in itself. That means for sortition to work it needs to be subject to certain constrains. This condition is neglected by many followers of sortition and that creates a problem, at least in when trying to make a political system to operate democratically. One such problem is created, concerning quality of representation in a legislative body, like a parliament, when sortition neglects to take into consideration the use of prerequisites.
Sortition was used in the first democracy in ancient Athens, in order to select, from teams of volunteers, 500 parliamentarians for a term of one year, 50 from each of the 10 districts with equal population. The prerequisites for one to be selected through sortition as a member of parliament in a district were: He had to be a Greek, a member of a district, 30 years of age and older among others. The question may arise as to whether these prerequisites were sufficient in order for the representation to be, concerning its quality, sufficiently appropriate. The operation of that parliament started around 509 B.C. and for more than half a century the parliamentarians, while working all year around, were not paid for their services. So the members of a district that were working for a living, even if they wanted to be among those in the teams of volunteers, it was, objectively, not possible and there were many of them. Another difficulty for the citizens to participate was the distance to Athens from the place they lived, which to many of them was a major obstacle. In any case the fact is that, even in the first democracy, prerequisites were used!
Another tool the Greeks used to serve the axiomatic principles of democracy was the citizens’ assembly (εκκλησία του δήμου), which is very popular today and is used, widely, for many different occasions. In some way this body too may be considered to be a product of sortition to which every male 20 years and older was able to participate in its deliberations. In this way no one could accuse anyone that any of these male citizens, who had the pleasure of participating in it, was the result of some form of collusion. In fact this executive body, that enjoyed absolute power, was the reason the Athenian democracy, subsequently in almost all democracies in all the so called city-states in Greece, was called direct democracy. Surely it was a direct democracy of the type, where the aristocrats and the rich had the upper hand (an early form of capitalistic mode of production), just in the same way the rich-capitalists with the aid of the politicians have the upper hand in all the direct democracy manifestations, like elections, plebiscites and alike of today.
Participation in all of the citizens’ assembly seatings (about 35 a year), where the participants deliberated on issues like voting for laws, electing specialists to do certain jobs and many other, was voluntary. Sometimes the participation was terribly poor. As a result of this picture one cannot say about a body like this that it represented direct democracy. In practice it worked as a representative body and in fact with a very poor representation, whose synthesis politically, socially, economically, geographically was very bad for similar reasons as those given above in the presentation of the workings of the parliament. The result here too was to put in charge of it the aristocrats and the rich. Also collusion and bribery in this body, that enjoyed absolute power, was present. This is the way historians describe those celebrated results of direct democracy (see A Therapy for Dying Democracies, Theodore C Stathis, Dorrance Publishing Co. USA).
It is for this reason why in my system of democratic government I propose the use of sortition, in different levels of the process, together with the use of prerequisites that have to be satisfied by those selected by sortition for party candidate slates. The purpose being of course to construct representative legislative bodies with members being equivalent peers – in knowledge and experience, controlling all regional activities and party activity, with an equal number, where possible, of women and men – so as to have meaningful deliberations on all arguments, while at the same time the interest of the rest of the citizens are, with the highest probability, safeguarded. One aspect which it is important to mention is that, because the term of the legislators is one, any incentive for the legislators to vote for laws that restrict rights of citizens will be very weak or nonexistent.
Adam Cronkright
Ali
Ahmed R. Teleb
avanderven
avergne
Alex Kovner
azakaras
Brett Hennig
campbellwallace
Simon Threlkeld
Nick Coccoma
codyhipskind
Common Lot Sortitionist
Conall Boyle
constitutionalism
davidschecter
graytmatter
gtridimas
H.J. Hofkirchner
John Burnheim
jgarry20151
Jochen Krattenmacher
johnedwardtaylor
johnhuang865
Jonathan Crock
keithsutherland
Jacob Richter
kkoreilly
lukewhito
SimonPek
Nathan El
Nicholas Gruen
Owen Shaffer
Patrick Chalmers
Paul Gölz
peterstone
Pierre-Etienne Vandamme
pronfeld
Emil
rcaze
richwbrown
Roger Knights
roslynfuller
Pierre-Etienne Vandamme
shaharavin
tbouricius
Ted Wachtel
Joshua Laferriere
theodorestathis
towardsautonomyblog
Wayne Liebman
Yoram Gat
Oliver Milne
Equality by lot 
Who decides the prerequisites for the decision-makers who determines the prerequisites for sortition?
LikeLike
The prerequisites are stated in the by-laws of the political parties which have to be accepted by all to become members. It can come about through deliberation of the founding meeting of the party. If an existing party accepts to democratize its operations using sortition, then the members decide the specific prerequisites. Depending on the level of the legislative body, analogous is also the level of quality of the prerequisites. The objective here is the legislators to be competent and experienced, representing all the areas mentioned in the article. Similar prerequisites will also be applied for the sortitioned members of all party organs. My system objectives are to transform today’s political parties to democratically operating parties.
LikeLike
So what kind of prerequisites are you thinking of? Can you give a few examples?
LikeLike
Examples of prerequisites by theodorestathis
There are at least three areas where sortition must be used, party organs, parliament and city hall councils. The candidates must live and work in the region and in every case the equality, of women and men in them, whenever possible, should be a constant objective. If in the area are minorities, then these too must be put into the equation. In some cases even geography might enter into the equation. In addition to these prerequisites merit and ability are the two other criteria that become part and parcel of the bundle of prerequisites. All these are also democratic objectives.
A local party organization, on the basis of my experience, should not be larger than one hundred members, if it is going to work effectively with the rules of those the citizens’ assembly in the ancient Athens used. In an organization of this size all members know each other and so participation and accountability, as well as, behavior can be easily checked. In larger assemblies anonymity encourages extremist behavior. On the other side the local organization should have sufficient authority, so as to be able to design the local party development program, something that will create a strong incentive to all members of the party to work with sufficient interest and zeal.
This process begins with writing down the problems of the neighborhood, like the conditions of schools, hospitals, traffic conditions, crime, environment, unemployment and so on and this implies talking to people of the neighborhood and to local authorities, before you start the deliberations and the votings on what the program shall be. This and all the other local party development programs, with specific priorities, will constitute the regional development program of the party. So it becomes obvious that the necessity to introduce merit and ability as a requirement for the members of the different levels of the organs of the party and the legislative bodies is totally justified. We are dealing with people and problems solving for the region and every little bit counts.
Merit and competence result through having acquired knowledge and experience, handling people and solving problems, mainly, in production. Speaking for my country, the minimum level of knowledge for a member of the local board of the local organization of the party, is to have finished, at least, high school and to have some experience working, preferably in supervising position and of course being for a couple of years active in the deliberations of the local party organization.
Teachers, medical doctors, businessmen, employees in government and in the private sector in position of authority handling people and solving problems are the criteria for acquiring the team of candidates in each field of human activity in the area, from each which a woman and a man are selected. The set of members that result from the first sortition process constitutes the team from which, through a second sortition, the party’s organ synthesis or the party’s candidate’s slate for legislative bodies, women and men in equal number, results. For regional party organs and above, like legislative bodies, the university degree should be the minimum requirement plus experience. In these cases, it is also desirable the candidate members to have also served in at least another party organ before. With a little bit of common sense one arrives at sensible set of prerequisites. In addition to all these seminars for improving the skills of the members are also in line. Parties now, at last, are working for improving the lives of citizens and not for increasing, through the various cliques’ strifings for power, the profits of corporations. This is a very serious mission and can be accomplished working all together and that is what this system, objectively, accomplishes. For new parties, obviously, there will be a transition time in order for the by-rules of the party in this area to be applied. In any event the prerequisites will differ from country to country. They must reflect the country’s level and perhaps some of its traditional values.
LikeLike
> merit and ability
“Merit and ability” according to whom? As always, those who advocate privilege according to merit and ability face the choice between asserting that those characteristics are universally recognized and asserting that they are only recognized by those with merit and ability.
If merit and ability are universally recognized then there is no need for formally excluding those without merit and ability because such people will naturally defer to those whom they recognize as having merit and ability. If, on the other hand, merit and ability are recognized only by those with merit and ability then the entire notion becomes no more than a subjective claim to privilege and cannot be accepted as democratic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I assume that the word defer in the comment is to be taken as refer.
In my system all members of the local organization participate in all deliberations while designing the local development program of the party. On the other hand those who will eventually become parliamentarians have a dual role. One is to represent the members as their delegates and the other to act as a specialist. So to some, one aspect looks to be democratic and the other not democratic, even though in the first democracy in ancient Athens it was considered democratic to elect or to select by lot specialists. This contradiction results because democracy is considered not as a tool that has as an objective the welfare of all people of the society, but as an end in itself. Unfortunately, as I commented in my article with the title: The problem with the election, many famous people fell in the past into this trap, some even in a very dogmatic way.
If the argument, stated by Yoram, is valid, then any legislative body that results through sortition could also be called to be oligarchic and not democratic, because its decisions are taking by few and not by all. None the less, we consider them to be democratic, because, having taken collusion out of it, we expect that it will act democratically, but we are not sure and that is why we add additional controlling strings, like recalling any member that is misbehaving. That is what the ancient Greeks were doing and they were not fooling around.
Merit and ability is generally recognized as an asset to have. Every society, at any given time, uses its norms through which merit and ability are evaluated by its people. That is how tradition of peoples is also formed. Merit and ability give more freedom to anyone to act and contribute to him or to society. It is the grand objective of democracy to transform the jungle society of today to a cultured one where also axiomatic principles are satisfied. Personally, I prefer to have in the legislative body members that can contribute to the objectives of democracy, than to have just listeners to be convinced by the others for or against an issue, while getting even paid! Sensitivities of this kind had also the ancient Greeks and many others, like Barbara Goodwin, since then, but let us not forget how dear the Greeks did pay for having such sensitivities, when forming a body, the citizens’ assembly, with executive power. They ruined democracy with that, because they took democracy to mean just an end in itself and not as a tool.
LikeLike
> defer
I mean “defer” – i.e., accept the judgment of another.
> If the argument, stated by Yoram, is valid, then any legislative body that results through sortition could also be called to be oligarchic and not democratic, because its decisions are taking by few and not by all.
The technical question of how many people are nominally (or even substantially) involved in a decision making process is irrelevant to the question of whether the process is democratic (contrary to the assertions of the participatory ideology). The process is democratic when each group member’s values and interests are taken account of equally to those of others during the decision making process.
The point of selection of decision makers by sortition is exactly that – that it brings into the decision making process values and interests according to their prevalence in the population. The problem with exclusions supposedly based on “merit and ability” is that they exclude the representation of some people’s values and interests from the decision making process.
> Merit and ability is generally recognized as an asset to have.
Quite. The problem is that of determining who has merit and ability. Again, are you asserting that everybody is able to recognize merit and ability, or that only those with merit and ability are able to recognize it?
LikeLike
I will assume that the objections which are raised are related to only those that have to do with merit and competence. In that case let us take the example which I mentioned it in my reply, that of the sortioned party organ that manages the workings of the local organization for, say, a year. Let us call it the board of the local party organization. There, it is mentioned that each member satisfies the requirements: (a) he has finished high school, (b) he is working for a year, or two, or three, you name it, in production-object or services, (d) he is an active member being involved, voluntarily, in some committee of the local party organization evaluating the noise, or traffic, or unemployment conditions etc. in the neighborhood and plus the other prerequisites, of gender, geography, associated with all the different production activities in the region of the electoral district in which the local organization is operating so that all are represented in the local party organ-board. As a result, there is no one, or more than one, that evaluates anything, or anyone?
The other issue raised is associated with the behavior of the political parties in the parliamentary assembly. The political parties, anyway, declare that they respect the rules of the constitution and the laws, even if when some parties did not voted for the approval of those documents, they are bound and obligated to adhere to the laws of the country, otherwise they cannot participate in the political process. In the deliberations of any legislative body the parties participate and discuss proposals and they may agree or disagree. At the end of the discussion the law that passes is that which is approved by the majority, that is how this system works so far.
LikeLike
> As a result, there is no one, or more than one, that evaluates anything, or anyone?
There are two types of judgements made here: at the individual level people judged as to whether they meet the qualifications (who gets to finish high school, who gets to work in a job that is considered relevant, who is considered an “active member” in a relevant organization). But more fundamentally, someone judged that certain qualifications are the relevant ones and that those who do not meet them are excluded. If I think that my values and interests are affected by some decision but I, and people like me, do not meet the qualifications, then my voice, and those of people like me, our values and interests, are excluded from the decision making process.
LikeLike
But of course I am not asserting that merit and ability is recognized by all. Not even the axiomatic principles of democracy, even though they are being called universal, are accepted as such by all. That is why valid decisions in a democracy are, usually, accepted as being those voted by a majority. The other way around are decisions that are taken by rightist and leftist dictatorships.
Now on the question who decides this or that the answer is the majority. To my previous reply I will add as an example the board, the sortioned party organ that manages the workings of the local organization. There, it is mentioned that each member satisfies the requirements: (a) he has finished high school, (b) he is working for a year, or two, or three, you name it, in production-object or services, (d) he is an active member being involved, voluntarily, in some committee of the local party organization evaluating the noise, or traffic, or unemployment conditions etc. in the neighborhood and plus the other prerequisites, of gender, geography, associated with all the different production activities in the region of the electoral district in which the local organization is operating so that all are represented in the local party organ-board. In this and/or the organs there is no one, or more than one, that evaluates anything, or anyone? Why is this so? Well, because in democracies those who are eligible to vote approve by voting the constitution of their land. The constitution then delegates to the parliamentary legislative body authority for the purpose of being able to vote, if needed, specific constitutional laws, so that the government can work according to the constitutional laws and for the purpose of satisfying the axiomatic principles of democracy.
Therefore, what a diploma of a high school should be is eventually decided by the parliamentary legislative body and that decision is reflected by a constitutional law. For anyone to be eligible to go to high school, a constitutional law may specify that one has to finish elementary school and in some cases the candidate for high school may even have to pass specific entrance examinations. In most countries finishing elementary school is mandatory. This may be the case also for the high school. All of these are done with the approval of the political system, even of a political system whose legislative body is the result of sortition, where no prerequisites are attached. So the society, as a whole at different steps, decides, according to the constitution what a high school diploma is and who can have such a diploma.
In the Athenian democracy the citizens’ assembly used a similar method. With that method it had in its services the parliamentarian assembly, among other tools. For one to be eligible to become a parliamentarian by lot he had to be thirty years old and above, among other things. Therefore they used prerequisites. The parliament by lot could vote for laws and other things. The citizens’ assembly approved or disapproved laws. That was the people’s decision. Today we have special courts that approve or disapprove laws if they do not satisfy the constitution’s requirements. These too are the people’s decisions. So the people either they decide directly or indirectly, when they delegate authority to an organ, approve meaning and its content. In both cases, in ancient Athens or today, the decisions many times were taken by voting. Those approved had to enjoy the majority of the votes.
Let us now go to the present case where the parties are in charge of all politics of a country. Here too these matters are approved, directly or indirectly, by the people as the constitution and the relative laws dictate. The participation in a political party results by the declaration of the candidate for the party that he accepts its by-laws, which were approved by The majority of its members of the party, when it was founded. No one forces anybody to be a member. It is the same thing with being a citizen of a country, provided that he accepts its institutions, which are stipulated by its constitution, he can become a citizen of that country. This means that a member of a party has to accept the tools, voted by the majority of its members, the party uses to fulfill its objectives.
The type of political party I am proposing is one that is efficient and satisfies also the axiomatic principles of democracy, which is the end result of the operation of democracy and of course accepts the status quo regarding the ongoing political system’s end result, which I endeavor to improve; otherwise you cannot exist as a party and operate. My system’s aims are to change things through a peaceful process not revolutionary. At the end how much the party’s program is accepted by the people will be seen by the results of the general elections where all eligible citizens participate.
Let us now take the case of, say, your way of doing business. Let us assume that your way is to get a sortioned legislative assembly without subjecting it to prerequisites. In that case who decides this specific way, because your way has also to face the case where some, most definitely, will disagree? And if your way means all the people of the country, why are you then in need of any sortition. In this case too, who decides to have this one citizens’ assembly embracing all the citizens of the country? Well when you will answer these questions, regarding your way, then, at the same time, you will answer your questions regarding my type of a party.
Once my system will come to the point to lead the country to a better democracy, then the people of that future time will, definitely, have some new ideas as to how democracy should work and that will be, justly, their way of doing business.
LikeLike
> Now on the question who decides this or that the answer is the majority
But, again, if a majority views certain characteristics as indicating “merit and ability” then that majority can simply follow the advice of those with those characteristics, and there is no need to exclude the minority from the decision making process. The minority that does not accept the judgement of those with “merit and ability” will be over-ruled by the majority who do.
Thus, excluding the minority of those who do not defer to those that the majority views as having “merit and ability” is unnecessary, and such exclusion only serves to undemocratically eliminate certain points of view from the decision making process.
LikeLike
Please read carefully my answer. Every body votes for the constitution and they delegate through the constitution who decides what a high school diploma is and how it can be obtained.
LikeLike
I understood the system you are proposing, and I pointed out that your proposal is not in fact justified by reference to “merit and ability” but rather aims at the exclusion of some voices from the decision making process.
To the extent that merit and ability of some are recognized by the members of the group, particular proposals made by those having the merit and ability would gain the support of the group members in the context of particular decisions. If this is the case, why do some people need to be excluded a-priori? Resorting to the a-priori exclusion of some voices rather than relying on gaining support for specific proposals indicates that reference to “merit and ability” is used as a smokescreen for undemocratic decision making.
LikeLike
Merit and ability is referring to the members of the legislative bodies, which they are selected by sortition subject to prerequisites.
As it is mentioned in my article the local party organization has in my system absolute authority regarding the construction of the local party development program. This means that no one in the higher levels of the party can change it. If on a higher level there are different ideas, then the issue is resolved through deliberations between local organization and the related organ. Whatever the final decision it must have the approval of the local organization.
The local development program is decided by the local party organization, where all of its members participate. No one is excluded. Decisions are taking by voting, where the rule of the majority applies. From all the local development programs the regional development program, with no changes whatsoever of the local development program, is constructed, which reflects the wishes of the majority of all the members of the party of the region.
Parts of the development program may be a town’s program, state program, or national program. Decisions are made by the relative legislative bodies, where its members come from all parties. The party representatives have the assignment of a delegate, namely they are delegated to vote the party’s development program. Cases of changes are handled through deliberations as those mentioned above. The members of the party, who voted for the party program, have always the last word, with respect to changes and if any they come through voting.
In my article I also mention that the members of the legislative bodies have a dual role. One is related to representation of different kinds related to a region and the other to specialty, where a job is to be done. Specialty in this case is related to the prerequisites required for a member to be part of the party’s representation in the related legislative body, which is selected through sortition.
Thus every party member participates, representation is taken care off and where a job is to be done, there satisfying of the prerequisites take over.
LikeLike