“Taxpayers fund radical anti-election lobby group” read the shock horror headline in the Times (12 April). It was an article by two journalists about the Sortition Foundation that campaigns (as you might have guessed if you were familiar with the meaning of the word “sortition”) for political decisions to be made by people chosen by lot rather than by elections. This is something that is accepted by governments for at least advising them on some matters. Such “citizens’ assemblies” are chosen by lot in the same sort of way that juries are in court cases. It was also practised in Ancient Athens. As such, it has as much democratic legitimacy as elections, despite what the article suggests.
The Sortition Foundation wants MPs to be chosen in this way. Which would of course eliminate the professional politician. A book by one of the Foundation’s founders, Brett Hennig, is called The End of Politicians. Naturally this wouldn’t be welcomed by the politicians. The journalists pointed out to one of the stupidest MPs, failed Tory leader Sir Ian Duncan Smith, that the foundation had been paid by the government to organise some citizens’ assemblies and got him to protest:
“How could they award contracts and award contracts and pay money over to such an organisation that wants to get rid of politicians.”
Getting rid of politicians might be considered a good idea by many. Being a career politician is a particular unsavoury profession — trading on problems people face and making a career out of making pie-crust promises to solve them. However, getting rid of them won’t solve those problems.
The Sortition Foundation argues that getting rid of politicians would make for better decision-making. “By removing elections,” one of its researchers is quoted as writing, “we remove the need for our representatives to court those with wealth and resources”. It wouldn’t, however, remove those with wealth and resources or their need to court political decision-makers.
The Foundation is assuming that in present-day society there is a common interest that a national citizens’ assembly — a “House of Citizens” — would be better able to identify. But, under capitalism, there is no common social interest. Capitalism is a society divided into two basic classes — those who own the places where the wealth of society is produced and the rest who can only get a living by selling their ability to work for a wage or salary— with antagonistic and irreconcilable interests. In addition, different sections of the owning class have different and conflicting interests. MPs chosen by lot would still be subject to lobbying and influence by these sections and would not be able to overcome the antagonism of interests between the owners and the wage-working majority. Capitalist economic reality would give them no choice but to take decisions that gave priority to profit making and taking.
Choosing MPs by election is a better system for capitalism. It enables the support for differing sections of the owning class to be measured and for the section with the most support to have its way. As long as capitalism is in existence, it is also better from the socialist point of view since it enables the socialist movement to send its delegates to the law-making assembly that is the key to controlling political power. Sortition would get in the way of this as there is no guarantee that a Parliament chosen by lot would reflect the degree of support for socialism amongst the population or a majority for socialism.
This said, in socialism, where would be a common social interest, there would be a wide opportunity to fill some posts by lot, maybe entire local councils, as one aspect of the participatory democracy that will be an essential part of socialism. But under capitalism it wouldn’t, and couldn’t, work as intended.
2 comments:
In your opinion, how many people belong to the class that owns the wealth of society? How many people belong to the other class? Is there not a massive imbalance between the second and the first? Does the fact that society is divided into classes prevent the jury system from working in America? Isn't it also drawn by lot?
However much I disagree with your argument here, I do agree with your conclusion that the proposal is inadequate. The biggest problem unaddressed is the unelected bureaucracy and military. It is likely these parts of the state would have no constraints under the proposed system.
Well under 5 percent of the population of every country own enough wealth to be able to live comfortably on the unearned income it brings them. So, yes, there is a massive imbalance between the owning minority and the rest of the population.
The jury system may work well enough in court cases but our point was that under capitalism choosing political decision-makers — those who control political power — by lot would not work as intended.
Post a Comment