Equality by lot

André Bellon is a former French politician, a member of the French national assembly in the 1980’s and the early 1990’s, and the founder of the reformist organization, the Association for a constitutional assembly. He writes the following in Revue Politique et Parlementaire. [Original in French, Google translation with some touchups.]

Members of parliament in favor of “citizens’ conventions” want, under the pretext of democracy, to place universal suffrage, an expression of popular sovereignty, under supervision.

Like the infamous sea serpent, we periodically see the resurgence of calls for the famous “citizens’ conventions,” formed by randomly selected individuals, supervised by experts, presenting themselves as spokespersons for the people. For their promoters, this represents a democratic revolution; in fact, it is a trick for mobilizing citizens without any real political power, or even for eliminating all popular sovereignty.

Originally, this proposal was particularly supported by experts who – perhaps by chance – saw themselves as leaders of these conventions. Didn’t one of them naively declare that he was struck by the fact that at the end of the debates, those drawn by lot found themselves, for the most part, in agreement with the experts?

On the members of Parliament

On January 15, 2025, 11 members of parliament from five parliamentary groups declared themselves the champions of this goal. They are demanding nothing less than the constitutionalization of these so-called citizens’ conventions. A conference is to be organized on this subject, a conference that seems to primarily bring together supporters of the project. It is true that critical thinking is not the most widely shared thing in the world these days.

The fact that members of parliament are concerned about the decline of democracy is in itself a good thing. We have often called on them to distance themselves from the system and to participate in the renewal of democratic life. Indeed, the so-called representative system generates fewer and fewer genuine representatives. Seeing deputies helping to create municipal citizens’ assemblies for the reconstruction of democratic life is a good thing, hearing deputies contest laws that are clearly contrary to the will of the people (for example, the pension law) would be infinitely desirable, but we cannot accept the idea that deputies wish to enshrine in the Constitution the legitimacy of conventions unrelated to universal suffrage. Because, in doing so, they call into question the republican principles of citizenship and equality of citizens and create a conflict of legitimacy. Indeed, according to the promoters of Conventions, whatever Conventions decide is presented as the “right” decisions, under the appearance of cold objectivity. The parliament that then takes them up is thus required to follow it: it is reprimanded if it does not. It is therefore in reality a question of leading citizens like a flock of children who must be shown the right path[i].

Can they make such a serious proposal affecting the Constitution and even universal suffrage without going back to the voters? In today’s profound institutional and democratic crisis, what does being a member of parliament mean?

On the Constitution

It is not those of us who have long called for the election of a Constituent Assembly who will oppose the need to rethink the Constitution. But it cannot be a matter of creating an additional body that will more or less, with a few strokes, largely controlled by insulated “conventions,” hold real powers, in particular those of the President of the Republic and of the European institutions. On the contrary, it must be remembered that sovereignty belongs to the people and that everything constitutional must therefore be subject to a referendum. It is no coincidence that the President of the Republic or the European institutions look favorably on citizens’ conventions that avoid having to go through the popular process. The “Conference on the Future of Europe” convened in 2021 perfectly illustrates this mechanism, which is ultimately very reassuring for the established power.[ii]

On universal suffrage

Campaigns in favor of applying sortition for the selection of representatives of the people (for what are the allotted if not representatives?) are associated the growing role of experts in public life. And, of course, the number of “experts” in favor of “citizens’ conventions” is growing. The ignorant population must be guided, and it is for this reason that campaigns against universal suffrage are developing. Haven’t we heard all this regarding the French people’s “No” vote in the [European constitution] referendum of May 29, 2005?

Citizens are increasingly criticizing the caricature of democracy put up by French and European institutions. But the crisis of democracy does not result from the use of universal suffrage. On the contrary, it is the consequence of the distortion, even disregard, of universal suffrage, particularly through the Lisbon Treaty, which flouted the French people’s vote in 2005.

Today, the law is no longer the product of democratic principles. It emanates from a technocratic process whose main actors are the European Commission and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg. In this context, European law has become superior to national law. We call for the will of all citizens to be affirmed through a referendum that questions this superiority.

For the sovereignty of the people

Popular sovereignty is the affirmation of trust in the citizen as well as in the people as political creatures. Universal suffrage, a political and social conquest won through hard struggle over the past two centuries, reflects these humanist principles. The fact that institutions distort it, by allowing it to retain its appearance and suppressing its effectiveness, does not justify discrediting it and seeking replacements. On the contrary, it must serve to resolve the crisis of the regime. Moreover, it is the only legitimate means to do so, without the constraint of a hand that directs it as the Conventions dictate.

It is through these questions that the much talked-about “Citizens’ Conventions” must be judged. In fact, they appear as the expression of a desire to find substitutes for the people and their sovereignty, by presenting themselves as a miniature nation. This idea is absurd because it replaces political representation with statistical representation, which is itself open to debate. Let us therefore reject this aristocratic discourse when so many signs have indicated the citizens’ aspiration for creating a free people in France, for truly legitimized institutions. Let us thus fight against pessimism about the ability of citizens to shape the general will within the framework of universal suffrage. For the sortition is more akin to the property-based suffrage, which was dear to Sieyès [an influential French revolutionary writer].

Everything must be done to restore power to the people, the natural sovereign in a democracy.

[i] Pourquoi tant de haine pour le peuple ? [Why such hate for the people?], by André Bellon https://www.pouruneconstituante.fr/spip.php?article1808

[ii] Le piège européen [The European trap], by Anne-Cécile Robert https://www.pouruneconstituante.fr/spip.php?article2028

Filed under: Elections, Press, Sortition |