In 2024 The Conservative Woman magazine had two articles on the issue of citizen assemblies. A column writer was opposed to the idea and presented the standard right wing objections (basically, these are just tools by the government to promote its unpopular lefty agenda). However, a piece by a citizen who took part in an assembly was very balanced and interesting.
TCW now adds another column to this topic, echoing the ideas of the first 2024 column.
As faith in government and institutions declines, citizens’ assemblies are pushed as the solution to the perceived democratic deficit. According to the UK parliament website, ‘a citizens’ assembly is a group of people who are brought together to learn about and discuss an issue or issues, and reach conclusions about what they think should happen.’ Defined in such benign, layperson’s language, what could possibly go wrong?
The House of Commons contracted three organisations (Involve, Sortition Foundation and mySociety) to run Climate Assembly UK on its behalf. According to the Sortition website, this is the process (quoted verbatim):
Select a broadly representative bunch of people by lottery.
Bring them together in an assembly, typically at small tables or groups, and let everyone have their say.
Have those most knowledgeable about, or affected by, the issue address the assembly, bringing in diverse viewpoints and proposals.
Get the participants to discuss, listen and talk to each other – and give reasons for their opinions.
Decide! On what is the best way forward.
Call me a cynic, but I suspect manipulation at each of these stages. Continue reading →
Glenn Greenwald is a former constitutional and civil rights lawyer and a prominent independent journalist, most famous for breaking the Snowden revelations about U.S. government surveillance.
In a recent segment on his show, Greenwald takes U.S. vice president J.D. Vance to task for claiming that U.S. supreme court is subverting the “democratic” will of the U.S. voters to deport all illegal residents from the country (as expressed in the election of Donald Trump to president) by putting up legal barriers to some deportation efforts implemented by the Trump administration. Greenwald rightly points out that Vance’s claim is obviously manipulative. The U.S. system has from the outset, deliberately and explicitly, set up various restrictions on what elected officials can do, and in particular legal challenges to executive policies have always been used, including, of course, by Republicans, to block popular policies.
When presented this way, all of this is the standard grist for the liberal mill. Politicians pretend to be concerned about the anti-majoritarian nature of mechanisms that they like to utilize in their favor when it suits them. “We”, good liberals who stand for civil rights and the rule of law, should be grateful that such mechanisms exist whether or not we support deporting illegal residents. Such mechanisms make sure that government is not despotic and that majorities do not oppress minorities. Specifically, a proper procedure for deporting illegal residents is already in place and is not in any way obstructed by the courts. We should all insist that this procedure is followed whether or not a majority of the voters wish to and thus it is good that the U.S. has anti-majoritarian procedures in place. Continue reading →
Clearly, “by the people” is a non-starter, so Nathan Gardels advises those readers of Noema magazine who are members of the benevolent, if a bit misguided, elites that if they wish to stem the rise of the authoritarian strongmen they better be “with” the people.
The rigid polarization that has gripped our societies and eroded trust in each other and in governing institutions feeds the appeal of authoritarian strongmen. Poised as tribunes of the people, they promise to lay down the law (rather than be constrained by it) […]
The embryonic forms of this next step in democratic innovation, such as citizens’ assemblies or virtual platforms for bringing the public together and listening at scale, have so far been mostly advisory to the powers-that-be, with no guarantee that citizen input will have a binding impact on legislation or policy formation. That is beginning to change.
[This takes us] a step closer to government “with” the people instead of just “for” the people […]
Keith Dowding, William Bosworth and Adriano Giuliani
Abstract: One reason for growing distrust of politicians, parties, and governments is the increase in ‘careerism’: politicians who have never worked outside politics and seem to work inside politics for themselves as much as for the common good. Sortition—choosing representatives by lottery—is one solution. However, random selection of representatives breaks the accountability link provided by elections and leaves amateur politicians at the mercy of their civil servants. It would, critics argue, destroy competitive party politics, the foundation of modern democracy.
We suggest that parties select their candidates through sortition of party members, with successful incumbent MPs standing again. This would mitigate the ills of patronage and adverse selection without losing professionalism and political experience. It would encourage deliberation and the proper persuasive and representation function of parties, alongside the accountability that elections provide. It would also, we suggest, lead to better advice to politicians from policy units within and outside the public service.
Keywords: careerism, democracy, political careers, political parties, professional politicians, sortition
It appears that Mr. Smarty Pants Knows is a brief section in The Austin Chronicle which introduces readers to the lesser known words and expressions of the English language. The April 11th, 2025 of edition of this section introduces its readers to the word sortition (among a few other words). The author provides a short rationalization for the mechanism.
Have you ever been selected for jury duty? Sortition is the selection of public officials or jurors at random to get a representative sample. In ancient Athens, they believed sortition was more democratic than holding elections because oligarchs couldn’t buy their way into office.
The recent judgment against Marine Le Pen in France has been compared to the decision against Georgescu in Romania. In each case a prominent “extreme right wing” candidate in a European country has been barred from participating in an election campaign in which they had a fair chance of winning. In fact, however, Le Pen’s case is much more similar to that of Turkey’s Imamoglu than to Georgescu’s.
First, unlike Georgescu, whose electoral win was retroactively annulled and who was barred from an election that is merely weeks away, Le Pen’s and Imamoglu’s electoral potential in elections that are years away is speculative. Second, and more importantly, while Georgescu was disqualified on openly political grounds, Le Pen and Imamoglu are being disqualified due to being convicted for illegal actions (or may be convicted and disqualified in the case of Imamoglu who has been arrested but not convicted or officially disqualified yet, I believe). The merits of the cases against Le Pen and Imamoglu may (or may not) be very different, but unlike the case of Georgescu, formally these cases are of the same type in the sense that they are both matters of legal determination rather than of setting political limits on candidates. Continue reading →
Demonstrators disrupt House of Lords to demand abolition of unelected chamber
Nick Lester and Abbie Llewelyn, PA Political Staff, 20 March 2025
Protesters have disrupted proceedings in the House of Lords demanding the abolition of the unelected chamber.
Protester Lucy Porter, 50, a primary school teacher from Leeds, told the PA news agency she was “campaigning for a house of the people”.
On the Lords, she said: “It’s a symbol of everything that’s outdated. “We don’t have a functioning democracy in this country.”
The leaflets, apparently modelled on an album by the Sex Pistols punk band, had written on them: “Never mind the Lords here’s the House of People.” On the other side it stated: “Aristocrats and oligarchs: Out. Posties, mums, nurses and neighbours: In. Replace the House of Lords to save the UK.”
The protesters said they were acting on behalf of Assemble, an organisation that campaigns for the Lords to be abolished and replaced by a citizens’ assembly. Continue reading →
Over the last few months Romania has been undergoing an electoralist crisis. The crisis was precipitated by the unexpected ascendance of the “far-right populist” candidate Calin Georgescu to the status of front runner in the first round of the presidential elections in November 2024. This round was annulled by Romania’s Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court’s unprecedented decision — which is final — came after President Klaus Iohannis declassified intelligence on Wednesday that alleged Russia organized thousands of social media accounts to promote Calin Georgescu across platforms such as TikTok and Telegram.
The court, without naming Georgescu, said that one of the 13 candidates in the Nov. 24 first round had improperly received “preferential treatment” on social media, distorting the outcome of the vote.
Needless to say, despite being dutifully echoed in the Western media, no evidence was provided to the public to back the claims of Russian meddling. Later reports seemed to be rather vague about those claims:
The European Union’s executive has opened a formal investigation into TikTok because of “serious indications” of foreign interference in the recent Romanian presidential election using the video-sharing platform. Continue reading →
In an impressive demonstration of the power of the electoralist dogma to twist one’s perception, Pierre Silverberg, writing in the Belgian La Libre, shares his belief that the ascent of the second Trump administration has a close historical parallel.
[Original in French, Google translation with a couple of minor touch-ups.]
From Democracy to Oligarchy
The parallels between the oligarchic revolution in Athens in -411 and the current coup d’état in the United States are striking.
In the Oligarchic Revolution, the Athenian elite decides to seize power, put an end to democratic institutions, and ally themselves with the enemy city, Sparta, to maintain their hold on Athens. Sound familiar? The historical parallels between the Oligarchic Revolution of 411 BC and the current coup in the United States are striking.
2036 years apart, both the Athenian oligarchy and the American elite present the individual and political freedoms acquired by the people as clear signs of moral and civilizational decline that must be acted upon. In both cases, the oligarchs present themselves as the only ones capable of straightening out the country and purging the nation of its excesses. And, naturally, in both cases, the oligarchy feels authorized to override the laws and subvert the system to the detriment of the people.
War as a context
These “oligarchic revolutions” also fit into a relatively similar historical context: war. The Peloponnesian War was a conflict that broke out between Athens and Sparta. Ideologically, Athens represented “progressive” Greece: its democracy was complete, each citizen enjoyed unprecedented individual freedom as well as the certainty of being able to actively contribute to the politics of his City. Thanks to its democratic practice of drawing lots, it is estimated that an Athenian citizen had a 70% chance of exercising a political role at least once in his life. Conversely, Sparta had kept its original constitution and represented “conservative” Greece. The City was a “gerontocracy” governed by two kings and a council of elders, the Gerousia. The people had practically no chance of ever exercising political responsibility and literally had to choose their representatives using an “applause-meter”. Continue reading →
Clearly, “by the people” is a non-starter, so Nathan Gardels 
It appears that Mr. Smarty Pants Knows is a brief section in The Austin Chronicle which introduces readers to the lesser known words and expressions of the English language. The April 11th, 2025 of edition of this section 
In an impressive demonstration of the power of the electoralist dogma to twist one’s perception, Pierre Silverberg, writing in the Belgian La Libre, shares his belief that the ascent of the second Trump administration has a close historical parallel.
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
Hanspeter Rosenlechner
James Kierstead
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 