Hajj by Lot

Posted on June 15, 2011 by peterstone

Apparently, in Turkey there’s some sort of lottery to make the annual pilgrimage to Mecca–

Religious Affairs Directorate selects out hajj applicants

The Religious Affairs Directorate has made the final selection of people going on the annual pilgrimage to Mecca. People were chosen through a random drawing, and the names of winners were posted online.

The hajj is one of Islam’s five obligations that every Muslim must fulfill, if possible, during his or her lifetime. According to Muslims, their journey to Mecca absolves them of their sins. The name drawing ceremony began with the reading of the Surah Yass’in from the Quran. Prior to the drawing, Religious Affairs Directorate President Mehmet Görmez said, “Whether your name is drawn or not, may God never reduce this excitement within your hearts.” Görmez also commented on questions people have raised regarding the random selection system. Some have questioned the current system and have asked for people that apply first to be granted the right to go to hajj. Thus, Gömez stated, “If we use this kind of a system [of selecting early applicants], then people who apply in this year will be able to go [to hajj] in 15 years.”

I must admit I’m rather ignorant on this subject. Is there some kind of permit needed to go to Mecca? Is that what’s being offered here? Or is this more like an “all expenses paid” trip, such that one could skip this lottery and go on one’s own dime if one wanted?

I seem to recall a posting on this blog about Muslim cabbies objecting to a random drawing of taxi licenses, on religious grounds. Wonder what they’d make of this.

Filed under: Distribution by lot, Press | 1 Comment »

Daniel Hannan: selection by lot – better than appointment

Posted on June 7, 2011 by Yoram Gat

Daniel Hannan, a writer, journalist, and Conservative MEP, writes in the Telegraph:

Lord Steel now proposes to make the House of Lords wholly appointed. In other words, one of the two legislative chambers would be nominated by the executive. Of all the alternative models – direct election, indirect election, selection by lot, heredity or, indeed, unicameralism – surely appointment is the worst.

At least one of the commenters, “erikbloodaxe”, picks up on the idea of sortition:

I think the Lords should be appointed by lot, from among the general population. Professional politicians (with the odd honourable exception) are completely out of touch. Give them about £100k pa and make them turn up.

To which Hannan replies:

Surely if you wanted it to be genuinely representative, people should carry on earning whatever they were getting before?

Filed under: House of Lords, Press, Sortition | 41 Comments »

‘Replace the House of Lords with a citizens’ assembly, chosen by lot’ (again)

Posted on May 21, 2011 by Conall Boyle

I know it’s an old idea (see Barnett & Carthy Athenian Option 1998/2008, ImprintAcademic), but here’s a letter in today’s (London) Times (Sat 21st May)

Citizens’ assembly

Sir,

Brian Harris (letter, May 19) is right to question whether the best cure for our dysfunctional Lower House is to create a weaker version in the Upper House. As he suggests, the last thing the public wants is more politicians.

A reform that would indeed mean “improvement, not a near duplication” would be to replace the House of Lords with a citizens’ assembly, chosen by lot from all members of the public (excluding political officeholders) willing to serve for a single fixed term, with adjustments to ensure fair representation by gender, age and region.

By virtue of its democratic credentials, such a popular assembly could be given greater powers to challenge the Commons. Even if these powers extended to a right of veto, there would be no conflict of legitimacy of the kind which, as Mr Harris points out, could afflict two elected houses: election and sortition are different but complementary modes of reflecting public opinion. It would thus be quite reasonable to require legislation to secure the approval of both houses.

Nonetheless, one could provide that an enduring deadlock between the two houses be resolved by referendum: that should encourage constructive compromise, as the Commons would no doubt be wary of trying the public’s patience by invoking such a provision too often.

CHARLES SCANLAN London NW8

Filed under: Press, Proposals, Sortition | 4 Comments »

« Previous Page