Guest columnist: We can return to a more appropriate form of democracy
Oligarchy - a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes. Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
This election cycle has exposed a view through the thin veneer covering our political system. We have seen the underside of the election process in our country, and it is not a pretty sight: partisan politics greased by money.
What sort of governing body is generated by American elections? One that often puts special interests ahead of making sound decisions. A governing body that devotes too much time to re-elections and not enough to tackling tough issues ranging from climate change to rebuilding infrastructure. And one whose members are not a reflection of the demographics and perspectives of the general public.
Is there a better way to select representative bodies to govern us? Is it possible to remove “politics”, “lobbyist”, and “campaign contribution” from our vocabulary, and still have a democracy? Can we remove the oligarchic underpinnings to our democracy? One only needs to look at history to find the answer. “It is thought to be democratic for the offices to be assigned by lot, for them to be elected would be oligarchic” - Aristotle (Politics, Book 4, Section 1294b)
If you recall what you learned about democracy as conceived in Greece thousands of years ago, you probably think first about direct democracy — a situation where all eligible voters made decisions. This ‘’People’s Assembly’’ was only part of the story. Athen’s People’s Assembly included 30,000 people, but only 6,000 could attend. However, issues that came before the People’s Assembly were first considered in a randomly-selected council of 500, called a Boule. The Boule also managed the day-to-day operations of the city. A number of historians consider the Boule to be the key institution to Greek democracy.
Random selection of decision-making bodies has not been totally lost through the millennia. One only has to think about juries in our court system, where we randomly select individuals to make life-and-death decisions.
What changes might happen if the random selection of members of a governing body occurs? It would be more likely that they deliberate issues and not sink into decisions based on political affiliation, posturing, and “sound bite” opportunities. They would be unafraid to make hard choices since they would owe no one any favors nor have an opportunity for re-election. In short, they would be more willing to make the right decisions.
Would a randomly-selected governing body have the expertise, ability, and experience to make sound decisions? Staff and consultations with experts would be available, just as they are now. Citizen-lawmakers would have more time available than elected lawmakers, as they would not be dealing with re-elections, fundraising, and politics.
Would this approach cost more? The cost of running elections is high. And the costs of specialized legislation that caters to special interests is incalculable. Should the President of the United States be randomly selected? Of course not. Random selection is a good method for choosing representative samples — groups, not individuals. The U.S. House of Representatives, for example, would be a reasonable choice for random selection of representatives. A few individuals who act irrationally would not influence the overall actions of the body. Recall that randomly-selected people are representative of Americans, and most Americans would make sound decisions.
Over the past several decades, randomly-selected decision-makers have been utilized to good effect in places such as Australia, Italy, Ireland, Belgium, Canada, and America. Several western states have used short-term randomly-selected committees to review and make recommendations on proposed ballot measures. A city in Australia is using one to re-define how their government will operate, with the possibility of instituting a randomly-selected council to run the city. The Tuscany region of Italy has a long history of employing a randomly-selected group to deliberate on important policies.
While the idea of randomly-selected members of governing bodies has been around for centuries, its modern adaptation is new. We need more experience with the idea in order for it to be used to solve larger problems. Next steps could include randomly-selected members of a county council, state boards, and eventually a state legislature.
We can return to a more appropriate form of democracy. One that chooses decision-makers who have the interests of everyone at heart, not just the financially and politically-connected few. Where decisions are based on honest deliberation, not partisan politics. Randomly-selected groups of individuals is the answer.
Owen Shaffer is a retired college professor living in Asheville.