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.
ELECTION, in politics, is the choice of public officers by the vote of those who are entitled to exercise the elective franchise. This is to be distinguished, on the one hand, from the appointment of officers by a superior, as by a king, a president, a governor, or a mayor; and, on the other hand, from their selection by lot. The last-named method of choosing public officers was considered by Aristotle one of the characteristic features of a popular government. It has been advocated by other writers, because of its tendency to prevent the formation of political parties. Party organization, the caucus, the coalition of different factions, the corruption of voters, the falsification of election returns, the interest of a particular candidate and kindred evils, it is argued, will all be swept away if officers are selected by lot.
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?
Marta Soler writes about demonstrations in Greece:
Today (Sunday, the twelfth day of the demonstrations) there is to be a huge demonstation in Syntagma; perhaps a million people are expected. There are calls out for simultaneous demonstrations in European capitals, in Lisbon, Madrid, Paris, Berlin… But the Greek one will be the biggest. A friend – a teacher – and his wife plan specially to come from Argos (and there will be a large presence from outside Athens). The sentiment for change – and against the European Union/government – is fierce, increasing in waves.
There is no obvious leadership for this revolution. The teacher along with other intellectuals, lawyers and some former government officials is proposing a constitutional change, a fourth body, a parliament of the citizens, to meet yearly (selected by lot, so as to be not under the influence of the parties). This is an old institution, described initially by Aristotle (in the Constitution of Athens). In it, the parliamentary leader would have to explain how his policies are consistent with the promises of his campaign and benefit the people, achieve a common good. If the government has become too corrupt (as is now particularly the case), the leader and other officials can be subjected to a censure, required not to seek an additional term, and even brought to trial. My guess from listening to the discussion in Syntagma is that this would be a popular suggestion.
I recently found the following news item at the website of Carleton College:
The Carleton College men’s track and field team won seven events and set numerous personal records on Tuesday as the Knights battled cross-town rival St. Olaf College in the annual Rolex Classic at Manitou Field. In keeping with tradition and the congenial relationship between the two squads, the meet’s winner was determined by random selection of a single event after the completion of competition. Lady Luck was on the Oles’ side this year, as the 200-meter dash – an event narrowly won by the hosts – proved to be the decisive event.
I was never very into varsity sports, especially track and field. Does anyone know if this practice is common?
P.S. I haven’t had the chance to review activity on the list for a few weeks. Hope to get back into the swing of things by next week.
YouTube has a talk by Prof. Alan Ryan discussing what he calls “real democracy, using lotteries in the way the ancient world used them”, and contrasting it with the existing system – which he describes as being similar to the Roman system – a system mixing elements of monarchy, aristocracy and monarchy. Ryan concludes by endorsing Fishkin’s “Deliberative Polling”.
Part one:
Part two:
This is a thoughtful, if brief, lecture and the points that are raised are worth discussing, I think, in comments and in future posts.
Hans de Jonge, a university Education Policy Advisor in the Netherlands asks for our help:
“I believe there is some similarity between the arguments used to support lotteries in the allocation of scarce places in medical school and the case for using lotteries in the distribution of research funds. Do you know of any papers in support of this, or instances where it is used?”Continue reading →
A poll previously mentioned on this blog found that in January 2010 45% of the U.S. public said that a group of people selected at random from the phone book would do a better job addressing the nation’s problems than the current Congress. Some doubt that such a finding indicates that many Americans would view a proposal to allot Congress favorably. Instead, they suggest that the positive responses are merely equivalent to exclaiming that “a monkey could do better than that lot”.
A February 2010 poll by CNN put the matter a little closer to home, asking: “Do you think you personally could do a better job running the country than our government officials are presently doing?”. 36% of respondents answered positively.
The obvious conclusion is that 9% of the public think that a monkey would do a better job than they would.
Other interesting findings from the same poll: over 80% of the public think each of the following describes “officials in Washington”: “Heavily influenced by special interests”, “Mainly concerned about getting reelected”, and “Out of touch with the average person”. Only 22% think the officials are “Honest”.
In The Principles of Representative Government (1997), Bernard Manin attempted to explain why Athenian (sortive) democracy was supplanted by election at the time of the birth of modern representative democracy. Many members of this forum have lamented this development and called for a return to classical democracy. In this post I would like to argue that sortition was only ever one element in Athenian democracy and that the other elements, if translated into a modern context, would of necessity be rather like the institutions that we currently bemoan. For analytic convenience I’ll deal with Athenian democratic practice under three categories:
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.
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
Ethan McCutchen
graytmatter
gtridimas
Henry Tuttle
H.J. Hofkirchner
HpR
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
