Sortition and Socialism Online Conference

Call for Presenters

The International Network of Sortition Advocates (INSA) is proud to announce our first conference, ‘Sortition and Socialism’, on Saturday the 31st of August. The aim of the conference is to help develop the theory of sortitional-democratic models of plebeian power and socialism, and build closer connections between theorists of sortition and deliberative democracy and leftwing theoreticians and activists. We invite speakers from both scholarly and activist backgrounds to explore the role of appointment by random selection within struggles for liberation and proposed alternatives to capitalism.

Invited speaker: Camila Vergara (University of Essex)

Presenter Information

Conference Date & Time: Saturday 31st August 2024, 15:00-19:00 UTC

The deadline for applications is the 7th of July. Talks should be no longer than 25 minutes; there will be a 20-minute Q&A after each talk, and a panel discussion at the end of the day in which all speakers are invited to participate. Applicants should email an abstract of their proposed presentation, along with a short bio, to <facilitator@insa.site>.

INSA is a volunteer organisation aimed at connecting pro-sortition academics, advocates, and activists around the world, to share resources and tactics and advance the theoretical understanding of sortition. As a functionally-defined network, we are multi-partisan, acting as a clearing house for sortition advocates of many different political stripes, conditionally brought together by our common interest in advancing sortition in theory and practice.

If you are a supporter of the use of sortition in politics or other realms, or interested in learning more about what sortition has to offer, you are invited to join our Discord server at <https://discord.gg/6sgnrphp6w>.

Filed under: Academia, Action, meeting, Sortition |

6 Responses

keithsutherland, on May 11, 2024 at 3:13 pm said:

Am I the only one to be concerned when sortition is purloined to serve a partisan agenda? One of the key qualities of sortition is its impartiality.

LikeLike
tbouricius, on May 12, 2024 at 1:01 pm said:

Democracy, and thus sortition, can have wide appeal, including both to the left and right wings (though it is not universal, as advocates of theocracy, monarchy, technocracy, etc. will oppose it). As for socialists, if some Leninist supporters of elite-vanguard-cadre-democratic-centralism can be shown how socialism would be better with democratic sortition, that has value to the movement for sortition.

LikeLike
keithsutherland, on May 12, 2024 at 5:27 pm said:

Terry,

If a randomly selected group were to deliberate on how they would wish to be governed, why do you think they would opt for socialism?

>advocates of theocracy, monarchy, technocracy, etc. will oppose it)

One of Cristina Lafont’s principal objections to Lottocracy is it’s appeal to technocrats. In the case of the French CCC the citizens assembly was presented with a pre-existing political decision and asked to find ways to achieve it.

LikeLike
richwbrown, on May 16, 2024 at 5:38 pm said:

I think we often confuse “sortition,” the process, with “sortition” as a distinct political system. I see sortition as a tool to make systems more egalitarian. Those systems can be political or not. We have some that are interested in applying sortition in the workplace, for example. Frankly, I’m more interested in getting as much exposure for the process of sortition as possible. If some see a way to apply it in a socialist context, then that’s a chance to expose more people to its benefits. I long to see a conference that illustrates the use of sortition in a more politically conservative environment. To me, it’s not the politics that matters here, it’s the process.

LikeLike
tbouricius, on May 16, 2024 at 7:49 pm said:

Keith,

I didn’t say sortition would LEAD to socialism, only that it was a good tool for any group that actually believes in democracy, and socialism would be better if it used sortition instead of a politburo. Now, the truth is, that most thoughtful ideological people have a bias that if that one person could just get a bunch of ordinary people together in a room and explain the world as they see it, even with opponents making counter arguments, that most people would agree with the first person. After all THEY have thought it through and their beliefs make sense and seem compelling to them, so they should to others too. This bias/belief that our OWN beliefs are best and compelling are the same whether we are right-wing, left-wing or no-wing. That is a reason sortition has the potential for a wide take-up. People figure most ordinary people will agree with them. Eventually, as the truth of where ordinary people actually end up landing on the spectrum(s) when prompted to pay attention and learn… at that point, people on the losing side may disown sortition (like anti-abortion activists in Ireland). But initially it can have wide appeal.

LikeLike
keithsutherland, on May 17, 2024 at 9:44 am said:

Thanks for the clarification Terry, I fully agree with Rich and yourself. My own prejudices tell me that (assuming quasi-mandatory participation and independence) an allotted body would lean in the conservative direction, on account of habit, caution and other aspects of the conservative disposition (in the Oakeshottian sense), so the politburo might be a tad disappointed.

Rich:> If some see a way to apply it in a socialist context, then that’s a chance to expose more people to its benefits.

The problem is guilt by association. Critics of the Irish (and other) citizens’ assemblies argue that they are the tools of a progressive elite that is out of touch with public opinion. That’s why I agree that the focus must be on the process, not the politics, and that it’s essential to ensure that the representativity and independence of the randomly selected jury. (Note the term “jury” rather and “assembly”.)

LikeLike