Equality by lot

My comments on the discussion at Deliberation and Structure.

Democracy is defined by its axiomatic principles. These to be satisfied one must invent appropriate instruments. This has been and still is the problem. From the discussion that is going on I get the impression that the method of constructing a citizens’ assembly is the use of lot. This tells me, that those who use this method of constructing citizens’ assemblies have no idea about the workings of democracy. Citizens’ assemblies are formed by all citizens of certain age in a region, in a city, in a state, in a nation. Meanwhile, in order for the citizens’ assembly to be operational we segment the entire population into small groups. A citizens’ assembly for an organization is made up of all its members. If the organization is large then the citizens’ assembly is segmented into smaller once. In those assemblies the participants pinpoint problems concerning their living standards or problems of a different nature. Which problems and in what order are to be solved the participants of the citizens’ assembly vote. The solving of these problems is what we call the development program of the region. The approved problems are being assigned to an infrastructure or infrastructures for solving them in the best possible way. These infrastructures are constructed in certain ways so as to make sure that the problems will be solved within the set timetable and as agreed.

Infrastructures consist of specialists of different level, among other things. Their selection, in a democratic system of governing, is done by sortition (by lot). The problems of the citizens’ assembly are solved on the basis of rules accrued from laws. These laws are provided by the one term political officers that make up the relative legislation body. They are members of the citizens’ assembly and are selected by sortition from a group of volunteers who meet certain prerequisites-knowledge, experience in all the sectors of production, experience working in the citizens’ assembly-in order that the representation is democratic and that it reflects the makeup of the population of the citizens’ assembly. This method ensures that any form of dependence and collusion is very restricted. For example payoffs need to be made to more than halve of the legislation body in order for a law, which benefits the payee, to pass. Also, because the legislator will return to the citizens’ assembly at the end of his term he will think twice to vote a law that will restrict his rights. All kind of specialists have to provide their services within a given period of time, which constitutes, also, their term of service. Exceptions exist for certain type of none political specialists.

Now we come to the most important point, where an answer must be given as to the infrastructures-instruments that will have to be invented and used, through which all the problems will be solved. So far, as I know, nobody, from the ancient time, when democracy was invented, up to this date, has answered it in a satisfactorily way in its entirety.

Before the period of democracy, ancient Athens was governed, for some time, by a leader which was elected by a citizens’ assembly. In one of those periods the leader was Solon and the citizens’ assembly was made up only of aristocrats. This citizens’ assembly was fairy homogeneous concerning the level of knowledge and other capabilities, like experience. So a sort of direct democracy could work fairly well in it, which it was also small and no one could be hidden in anonymity, when voting was being taking place.

When democracy was installed the citizens’ assembly was opened to all male citizens of age 20 gears and older. This assembly did not exhibit the homogeneity the aristocrats’ citizens’ assembly exhibited and its size was in certain cases huge. In both types of assemblies participation was on a voluntary basis. Direct democracy in the democracy’s citizens’ assembly was held only on paper. In practice those who controlled the decision making process were the aristocrats. This instrument worked as a Trojan horse, which, though it was not eligible to elect politicians saving thus democracy from them, it ruined the future path of democracy by voting decrees and laws and electing specialists, even though for one term except the ten generals whose terms could be renewed, which had, most of the time, an aristocratic flavor.

The other instrument, the ancient Athens democracy used, was the parliament, which consisted of 500 hundred citizens, 50 from each of the 10 districts of equal but mixed by lot – from city, shore and land- population. Those were the only politicians and were selected by lot for a one year term. Now, because the lot was made from a group of volunteers and because the first have century of democratic rule parliamentarians were not paid for their services, the makeup of parliamentarians was also homogeneous. They were mainly aristocrats, because they were able to work without pay and because of this it work quite well.

In short that was the way democracy started and operated. From the above one can come to certain conclusions.

• Political officers are selected by lot and for one term.
• Political officers do not have to be specialists in politics, but do have to meet certain prerequisites.
• Citizens’ assemblies need to be small in size in order for them to work democratically.

The above three conclusions led me to believe that the best way to attack the problem of installing democracy is to base it on the democratic operation of political parties (see my book, A Therapy for Dying Democracies, Dorrance Publishing Co., USA). Political parties, even today, have a homogeneous set of members, regarding approach of solving problems and thus constitute an ideal instrument, when they can be made to operate democratically, to promote democracy. This, also, constitutes a convenient way, since we start with what we have. We do not have to invent nothing new except the instruments of making them operate democratically.

The foundation of a political party in this new way of doing business is the local party organization of a size not greater than one hundred members, so that the proceedings of the workings of the citizens’ assembly institution-everybody speaks on equal time terms on all issues if he wishes and everybody has the right to vote on issues for which decisions have to be made-can work on the basis of direct democracy without any problems. Here the plumber and the scientist, who live in the same neighborhood, discuss the issues related to their local development for the purpose of solving local problems and for which process they enjoy now absolute authority. The local organization enjoys now absolute authority on issues related to local development. The local organization fulfills certain aspects of homogeneity-geography, approach for solving problems (through private or public sector) – which help this kind of a citizen’ assembly to operate with direct democracy proceedings. In addition they know each other well and nobody can hide himself in anonymity. Everybody is exposed to criticism by the members of the assembly and thus everybody behaves accordingly. No prerequisites are attached to the members except that they accept the by-laws of the party.

Prerequisites are set for regional party organs of the party for the purpose of establishing more homogeneity and of safeguarding more effectively the locals’ assembly rights. The members of the regional or national party organs are selected by lot and must meet the requirements, such as level of knowledge, experience in his area of production and experience working in the party. Such regional party organs work on the basis of the proceedings of direct democracy. Their size is small for the same purpose the local party organization is small.

Filed under: Athens, Books, Sortition |