I first came across 'Sortition' after reading 'Against Elections' by David Van Reybrouck a couple of years ago.
In it he explains that for most of its 3000 year history, democracy did not involve elections at all as members of the public were appointed to positions in government through a combination of volunteering and selection by lottery. In fact, he points out that the original purpose of elections was to exclude the people from power by appointing an elite to govern over them - and haven't they been supremely successful.
The action of selecting or determining something, in this case a government, by casting or drawing of lots is called ‘Sortition’ and of course our juries are selected using this system today. Based on this and the fact that sortition was used to select the governments in ancient Greek cities the author believes that there is no intrinsic reason why all our governance could not be selected in this way.
I think the principle of sortition has a great deal going for it, after all if our juries can be selected by lottery then why should not elements of our governance. However, my own opinion is that it would not be practical or desirable to adopt it for all our governance.
The governance of our country or even local regions is now far more complex than the days of administering a Greek city in the 6th century BC. THA certainly wants to enable the ‘people’ to have a far greater say in the governance of our country but I believe the day to day running and technical detail of our governance is best handled by dedicated officials overseen in the main by elected politicians but who are, importantly, answerable to the people they serve.
The six demands of our agenda set out very clearly how the people will no longer be able to be ignored and provides them with the mechanisms to have their views heard and when applicable a majority will be able to stop government legislation. We have also been very careful to ensure that certain rules and procedures need to be followed to avoid the situation where we end up with mob rule.
I also still believe in our FPTP system for elections as, for all its faults, it still beats all the other systems and prevents the endless coalitions usually comprised of the same parties and people who perform endless deals behind closed doors. FPTP allows the people to get rid of a government they no longer trust.
My first choice, for a system of sortition, would be in the long over due reform of the House of Lords which, as I wrote last week, would be reduced to 300 members with a third each elected, appointed and selected by sortition. Also it could be used in part for the appointment of people to government official enquiries and quangos. Why should the members of the public not take part in such things which currently only go to the chums of our out of touch politicians.
Once sortition has been proved to work and is successful then I see no reason why the principle should not be extended to a reduced House of Commons of say 500 with the number of MPs allocated by county based on its population with at least a third selected by sortition.
In summary I believe the specific use of sortition should have its place in the long over due reforms to our system of governance as it gives the people real power and after all the defination of democracy is 'People Power'. Unless and until the 'people' have the ability to hold the upper hand over our politicians they will continue to take advantage of us and take us and treat us for fools.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlfred the Great’s Law Code brought about a form of government by consent, which lasted up until 1066, when government became imposed from the top. However, the principles of the Law Code run deep, so deep that there has been a continual battle between those who wanted to impose government upon us and those who wanted government by consent. Magna Carta, 2nd Civil War, Glorious Revolution, Reform Act, WWII and Brexit represent some of the challenges to “The Elite” as you put it.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with sortition is the power held by those who decide who are the “competent and interested parties”. Sadly, this isn’t “People Power”.
If implemented people put themselves forward for selection and the numbers required are picked at random. The current 'elite' have no choice in the matter.
ReplyDeleteThen with our other demands the people have the real power to hold the government to account.
'People Power' is exactly what THA is all about.
You will just get a number of people with as many different agendas as the number of those who come forward. There will be a divide and conquer strategy by the powerful party system.
DeleteWhat initiative will make them fall in behind the THA banner?
" FPTP allows the people to get rid of a government they no longer trust." Nothing does, unless there are trustworthy candidates to replace the incumbents.
ReplyDeleteThat is a major problem in that the Party system has gained enough power to make it difficult for non-Party candidates to make a go of it.
DeleteA movement, encouraging "trustworthy" independent candidates to run, allied losley to the THA demands, could gain some useful traction, IMO, but it would take some considerable effort to get the idea off the ground. Sadly, I see no willingness of anyone to make such an effort.
More likely is a small number of independents rising up who will be following their own individual pet agendas, who will, eventually, just fade into the mist.
It is very true that we will not get any reforms to our governance unless the people wake up and get behind them.
DeleteI also agree the people as yet show little to no sign of being prepared to demand change.
But to say or believe that the people will never demand change is to ignore history. Our demands will take time but then as did five of the Chartists six.
But the Chartists had a movement, or more than one, behind them, to make things happen. I see no movement picking up THA. The danger is, despite your efforts to keep an ember glowing, that THA will just fade away as other movements are created and pick up momentum.
ReplyDeleteThat could be the case or the embers could finally flare up - neither of us have a crystal ball so predicting the future is impossible.
ReplyDeleteI feel that you are missing the point.
ReplyDeleteI agree we don't yet have a 'Movement' but the Chartists movement only lasted about 10 years and then with the ideas embedded into the political class it was then general 'People' pressure that brought about the enactment of five of their six demands over the next 70 odd years.
DeleteTHA exists and may or may not build up a mass following but if it does then the embers could well flare up.
PS. I'd be more than happy to make direct contact with you if you use the link on our website.
I think if you have people appointed to quangos at random, the "in" people, those "in the know", would bully the incomers and use various techniques to nullify their influence. How about if parliamentary Bills, if passed by the MPs, would then be decided on by a jury? The jury would attend the debates without speaking (except at the discretion of the Speaker, to ask questions) or voting, then retire to decide whether the Bill passes or not.
ReplyDeleteI don't see the problem with committed volunteers selected by sortition being bullied.
ReplyDeleteAs to the people's involvement with government legislation our fourth demand 'The People's Consent' covers this.