A call for an institutional upheaval

An open letter by Eric Jourdain and the CaP Démocratie collective to the president of the parliament of Wallonia published in the Belgian newspaper Le Soir (machine translation):

Mr. President,

The crisis of democracy we have been experiencing for several decades is serious and profound. Serious because it results in the rise of populism, which reminds us of the 1930s leading up to the Second World War.

This crisis is profound because the very foundations of our political system are at stake. Today, a large portion of the population feels poorly represented, or even completely unrepresented, by political parties. An IWEPS survey indicates that 80% of Walloons no longer trust politics.

It is the quality of citizen representation, over which political parties have a monopoly, that is at stake. This monopoly has existed since 1830, but the world has changed a lot in the meantime.

Yet, with a few exceptions, the political world seems hardly concerned about this situation. Improving our system of governance and the way citizens are represented within our institutions do not seem to be a priority.

A Necessary Shock Therapy

The problem is profound, and to remedy it, we need shock therapy, an institutional upheaval. Faced with the partycracy that is plaguing our country, as Mr. Prévot put it, how can we break with this system?

We demand the establishment of a true bicameral system with a second assembly completely independent of the first, and we propose that it be composed by drawing lots. This method of representation has proven itself in ancient history but also in the 21st century. Isn’t it said that in a democracy, the people are sovereign? This sovereign should always have the power to make their voice heard and thus command respect. Voting once every five years is no longer sufficient.

With further reform of our Constitution, this true bicameral system will, among other things:

1. Combat parliamentary inaction. Let’s take a concrete example: the crisis in the Brussels Region, which is without a government one year after the elections. The solution would be for the sovereign people, six months after the elections, to decide, through a binding citizens’ assembly, to send the residents of Brussels back to the polls.

2. To clarify certain obscure laws, decrees, and regulations. These are all sources of scandals that damage our institutions and the trust essential to their proper functioning.

3. The establishment in Wallonia of citizen oversight independent of political parties.

The revision of the Constitution is, of course, not within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Wallonia, over which you preside, but in the Walloon Region, we can take a first step in the right direction today.

It is time to make this project a reality

In 2022, our CaP Démocratie Collective launched a petition with over 3,000 signatures, suggesting that the Walloon Parliament implement a system inspired by the one that has existed since 2019 in the German-speaking Community of Belgium.

On June 14, 2023, the Parliament of Wallonia unanimously decided to respond favorably to our petition by tasking a Joint Deliberative Commission composed of 30 randomly selected citizens and 10 elected officials to study the issue. In February 2024, at the end of its mandate, this commission made several recommendations to the Parliament of Wallonia, including the establishment of a permanent citizens’ assembly composed by random selection to complement the elected Parliament. The interest, even enthusiasm, of a majority of citizens and elected officials for this project was very clear.

One year after the elections, we ask that the Parliament of Wallonia pass an ambitious bill with an adequate budget to implement this project. Given the gravity of the situation, the opposite would, in our view, be a new example of parliamentary inaction.

One year after the elections, we ask that the Walloon Parliament pass an ambitious bill with an adequate budget to implement this project. Given the gravity of the situation, the opposite would, in our view, be a new example of parliamentary inaction.

In terms of institutions, the Engagés platform for the 2024 elections states the following: “We propose adding, to each representative assembly, a joint assembly of randomly selected citizens.” This is exactly what we are demanding. A “about-face” by this party, which has based its own reassessment on citizen participation, among other things, would be unthinkable; it would be a telling illustration of what we criticize political parties for: changing their minds depending on whether they are in the opposition or the majority before or after the elections.

During the current legislature, we met with the group leaders of the five parties represented in the Walloon Parliament; they were open to our proposal, and even very supportive.

Safeguarding Democracy

Mr. President, what we are clearly asking you is that, after the German-speaking Community of Belgium in 2019, and after the city of Paris in 2021 (two million inhabitants), with an ambitious project and an adequate budget, the Walloon Region quickly become the third entity in the world to establish a permanent system using random selection to represent its population.

Are we Walloons not capable of ambition, audacity, and innovation, and thus show the way to other regions and other countries facing the same democratic crisis?

Wouldn’t it be a source of great pride for Wallonia to be the source of the modernization of democratic institutions? Western democracy represents an entire civilization and its values ​​that are under threat. It is also a mode of governance that must be modernized. Recently, President Macron declared that Europe was mortal, but without its own self-examination, so is our Western democracy.

We look forward to your positive response. Thank you for your attention and send us your sincere regards.

One Response

  1. The sentiment is good, but the strategy is wrong. Having one chamber elected in partisan elections and another selected by lot will not turn out well. The professional partisans will recruit those selected by lot to join a partisan caucus. The sheer number of bills means that the randomly selected body will have to resort to a committee system, with small samples that will often be unrepresentative. If the two chambers disagree on a bill, the professional public relations politicians with careers before them will seek to delegitimize the random body (who having no career path and not public relations expertise) will fall into disfavor with the public. The better strategy is peeling one policy domain at a time away from the politicians and vesting decisions on that specific policy area exclusively to a sortition process. Here is my paper on this topic:

    https://www.academia.edu/37578530/Why_Hybrid_Bicameralism_is_Not_Right_for_Sortition

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.