A possible solution to leadership failure is clear: Scrap elections and replace them with democratic lotteries. In place of elected officials would be, as the ancient Greeks envisioned, Ho Boulomenous, or “anyone who wishes.”
Instead of electing rich, polished politicians who are tied to special interests, we should be getting the masses to govern. They want to replace the entire legislature with ordinary people, selected at random in the same way we choose jackpot winners.
Wonder if this would work? I mean jurors are chosen randomly (in the USA anyway). I’m not involved in US politics, but it did get me thinking that there are a lot of problems with politics in general, and politicians. With a random process we’d also end up rotating these people like banks do for bank managers to ensure there is no entrenchment and working around the system. Can it be worse than is already happening in some countries? Clearly “elected officials” have not been shining brightly around the world.
mate just do democratic centralism like the soviets did, or cuba still does. 5 levels or so of offices, starting from communal all the way to national. In, say, the USA it would look like township, county, state, federal. With such a system it’s entirely possible to have neighbourhood elections, or regroup some states together. People vote for the level higher up, so citizens vote for their communal representatives. They have to give accounts to their constituents and can be recalled at any time by popular vote. Here’s the kicker: you can’t present yourself as a candidate, someone has to vouch for you, and you don’t vote for who you want but who you don’t want. We keep going in rounds until there’s only one candidate left, and then we decide if we want this candidate too. If we don’t, we start over again with new people. You only get a standard sheet of paper to present yourself and you can’t make any promises, since your goal is to represent the will of the people and as a cadre, guide them towards better democracy (while taking their wishes into account). No campaign funds, no outlandish promises you’ll never keep, no corporate interests.
This will also require representation at work and socialism. Unions will represent trades and will work the same way. They will have their own sphere of government, distinct from the political side above, but also linked since you as a person are a worker and a citizen, and so is everyone else. Since it’s a socialist economy at this point (this would never happen in capitalism because democracy as we live it was created by the bourgeoisie, and they would be fools to put a stop to it willingly), it actually strengthens unions and work – there is no more tug-of-war between workers and boss, and so unions can be democratic.
A random list is essentially a roll of the dice. It’s saying luck will govern us better than we can govern ourselves. We can govern ourselves just fine, because politics is a human invention and so is society – therefore humans should be able to navigate it. The problem we have is the whole system, and politics are but a reflection of the mode of production.
Interesting point about the unions and yes true democracy was invented way back in a different world… interesting how we cling to it, but also probably because it’s better the devil you know than the one you don’t ;-)
It’s one of the two serious concepts (that i know of) for how a democracy - a system where the people are in full control of the government - would work.
-
There are two houses of parliament. The lower one is elected representatives. They can propose and write laws. The upper house is a random sample of society. They vote on laws. They are not expected to represent anyone - they just vote according to their personal interests.
-
At any time, a petition can be brought to the electoral commission on any issue. If there are enough signatures, the issue will be put to referendum. If passed, it will be added to the constitution, the highest form if law. This can be used to require the government to do something, to prohibit them doing something, or to change to way governance works. The referendum can also be to sack the government and call new elections.
Either is sufficient to make a true democracy, but they could also be combined. Each requires only small changes to a typical modern state. But the changes are just enough to give the people real power over their government.
Look at Southern Ireland, Switzerland, or California for examples of states that are closest to democracy.
Yes government itself usually operates that way - experienced and qualified officials doing the work and also drafting proposals etc, whilst politicians were the elected (not necessarily clued up) body who were supposed to approve etc. The problem came in with power and lobbying etc. Not sure how we’ll get rid of that but rotation of people is one way so relationships are not exploited, and shines some light in dark corners. Yes it is worth looking at where things do work better.
The problem is the politicians cannot be relied on to represent their electorates. Even if they are honest, they couldn’t possibly know accurately the consensus of their whole electorate on every issue.
For important issues, people have to represent themselves.
-
deleted by creator
Yes part of the problem is often those who are least qualified can be resented by others, or those who lack some years of experience in life. Maybe the starting point (just like for any business solution) is to decide what is actually needed to do the job. Although that said, the US jury system I understand comprises of anyone selected, and they are guided in law by the judge. In that way a citizen plays an oversight role, but needs to ask difficult questions about why, who benefits, what risks, what if we do nothing, etc.
deleted by creator
we’d need to revisit their logic a bit before giving too much credence
To add to that, we also have to understand how the US evolved to where it is, we need to study history since the point of founding to understand all sides of a problem.
Ultimately their ideas never came to pass, but that’s because no matter how much they wished for it, how much they had the idea for it and wanted it, there were very real material conditions that prevented them from avoiding this political class.
I figure when you create a country on slavery and populate it with capitalists (or proto-capitalists at the time), there aren’t many ways it can end up. Some capitalist class is going to rise to the top, and they would naturally congregate towards other positions of power. They have power over their fellow man already, in the most literal sense, and they need to protect that. So it makes sense that with their money they can buy elections (I suspect some paternalism took place like we saw in Europe, but I don’t know how widespread it was), and they managed to evolve into a political class of their own – which still practices slavery today no less.
Therefore we see that no matter what the founding fathers envisioned, their analysis came short of actually understanding the material basis for their situation. The kicker is that they themselves were slave owners and capitalists. I believe they generally thought they had the right ideas, but clearly having the right ideas alone is not enough to secure a system.
deleted by creator
It would also be interesting that simply adding term limits doesn’t stop the formation of a dominant class. Just look at Ancient Rome. Remained a somewhat democratic Republic for over three hundred years. Yet nearly every consul comes from the same families. How many newcomers? Term limits can hamper tyranny from one man but will in no way prevent the formation of a policial class.
So very true - entrenchment is a risk. Problem is politics started becoming a career where I understand it was once an over-and-above or just a temporary job.
That’s because it was changed to becoming so much more complicated. Try to understand modern laws and stuff with all the caveats and stuff. You practically need a degree (witch is why so many do). It’s created a sort of supposedly enlightened class.
In France there was the Citenzens Convention for Climate Action. I was pretty impressed honestly what they offered (149 proposal). They were chosen at near random to be representative. Had people as young as 16. People from the overseas, workers, small company CEO, civil servants, men and women, religiously or culturally or racially representative too.
I didn’t know I’ll look it up.
But in France the president has absolute power. And the electoral system is designed (deliberately) to concentrate power, and is badly hobbled in other ways too. France would be an example of not to do, designing a democracy.
This might interest you too.
Well no the president doesn’t have absolute power. The national assembly has most of the power. Of course, very often the national assembly will just follow the government but still.
The president chooses (and frequently replaces) the government. The president appoints a large chunk of the assembly. The elections are coordinated to ensure the President’s party has a majority of the other seats. The fifth republic has many mechanisms to ensure all power rests with the president.
In what sense does the assembly keep any power?
The president doesn’t appoint large chunks of the assembly. Before changing the rules, there used to be a couple of cohabitations. The assembly does keep legislative power. Proof is they don’t always go 100% with the government even when they are from the same party.
Though I agree a change would be very welcoming.
You’re right. I don’t know why I thought otherwise.
The National Assembly (Assemblée Nationale) has 577 members, elected for a five-year term in single seat-constituencies directly by the citizens.
The Senate (Sénat) has 348 members, elected for six-year terms. 328 members are elected by an electoral college consisting of elected representatives from each of 96 departments in metropolitan France, 8 of which are elected from other dependencies, and 12 of which are elected by the French Assembly of French Citizens Abroad
hmmmm…if its just one randomly selected weirdo i see the problesm. but like, if all the congresspeople, and judges, and everyone was selected that way…
it being only citizens (while the systemic issues in the US persist) is an issue but i dont have any better ideas.
idk seems worth thinking about honestly.
Yes politicians are not especially qualified - they need to ask questions, put the interests of citizens first, not be corrupt, etc. I’d gather it is a representation so may be more than one. Gov officials, judges, engineers, etc need to be qualified in what they do.
