From Deliberative to Radical Democracy? Sortition and Politics in the Twenty-First Century*

• Published date: 01 September 2018
• Date: 01 September 2018
• Author: Yves Sintomer
• DOI: 10.1177/0032329218789888
• Subject Matter: Special Issue Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329218789888

Politics & Society

2018, Vol. 46(3) 337 –357

© The Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0032329218789888

journals.sagepub.com/home/pas

Special Issue Article

From Deliberative to Radical

Democracy? Sortition and

Politics in the Twenty-First

Century*

Yves Sintomer

Institut universitaire de France

Abstract

This article defends four claims. The first is that in the last few decades, two waves

of democratic innovation based on random selection must be differentiated by their

partly different concrete devices, embodying different social dynamics and pointing

toward different kinds of democracy. The second claim is that the rationale of the

first wave, based on randomly selected minipublics, largely differs from the dynamic

of political sortition in Athens, as it points toward deliberative democracy rather than

radical democracy. Conversely, empowered sortition processes that have emerged

during the second wave capture better the spirit of radical Athenian democratic

traditions. The third claim is normative: these empowered sortition processes are

more promising for a real democratization of democracy. The last claim is that any

proposal of a legislature by lot must rely on this lesson when trying to defend a

normatively convincing and politically realistic perspective.

Keywords

deliberative democracy, democratic innovation, minipublics, political sortition, radical

democracy, representative democracy, self-government

Corresponding Author:

Yves Sintomer, CRESPPA-CNRS, 59–61 rue Pouchet, 75849 Paris Cedex 17, France.

Email: sy@cmb.hu-berlin.de

*This special issue of Politics & Society titled “Legislature by Lot: Transformative Designs for Deliberative

Governance” features a preface, an introductory anchor essay and postscript, and six articles that

were presented as part of a workshop held at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, September 2017,

organized by John Gastil and Erik Olin Wright.

789888PASXXX10.1177/0032329218789888Politics & SocietySintomer

research-article2018

338 Politics & Society 46(3)

John Gastil and Erik Olin Wright present legislature by lot as a real utopia, which

would push a step further a long democratic tradition coming from Athens and revital-

ized by contemporary minipublics at the end of the twentieth century. A number of

convincing arguments tend to demonstrate that this is a promising way of democratiz-

ing the political system. However, some questions should be raised. What kind of

democracy is at stake? Deliberative democracy, as most of the proponents of minipub-

lics advocate? Radical democracy, as induced by the frequent reference to Athens? A

mix between both—or something quite different? What is the specific value of sorti-

tion? Although defending a mixed constitution and a complex vision of democracy,1

Aristotle famously wrote, “It is considered democratic that offices should be filled by

lot, and oligarchic that they should be elective.”2 Jacques Rancière goes in the same

direction when he writes, “The scandal of democracy, and of the drawing of lots which

is its essence, is to reveal . . . that the government of societies cannot but rest in the last

resort on its own contingency.”3 The political scientist Bernard Manin, in his seminal

book on representative government, seems to share the same idea.4 I advocate for a

much more complex narrative. The idea that sortition in politics has sustained a tran-

shistorical democratic logic is more myth than historical fact, as political sortition has

been used in quite different functions throughout history.5

I will defend four claims, two historical and two normative ones. The first historical

claim, which will be central in my argument, is that when analyzing the experiments

that have taken place in the last few decades, two waves have to be differentiated on

the basis of their partly different concrete devices, embodying different social dynam-

ics and pointing toward different kinds of democracy. To a great extent, the rationale

of political sortition has changed from the first wave to the second one. The second

historical claim is that the rationale of the first wave of democratic innovations based

on randomly selected minipublics largely differs from the dynamic of political sorti-

tion in Athens, as it embodies a logic of deliberative democracy rather than a logic of

self-government and radical democracy. Conversely, the second wave is more differ-

entiated and more compatible with a neo-Athenian perspective; empowered sortition

processes that have emerged during the second wave capture the spirit of radical

Athenian democratic traditions better than consultative minipublics. My third claim is

normative: these empowered sortition processes are promising for a real democratiza-

tion of democracy. My last claim is that any proposal of a legislature by lot must rely

on this lesson when trying to defend a normatively convincing and politically realistic

perspective.

In what follows, I will take a critical approach, studying real democratic experiments

(historical and current) to understand the normative and political claims that come from

society, rather than try to assert pure philosophical principles. I will first describe the

initial wave of experiments, composed by deliberative pools, citizen juries, and consen-

sus conferences, that used sortition in politics at the end of the twentieth century. Those

experiments have been mostly top-down consultative minipublics. They have comple-

mented representative democracy with deliberative democracy, and the latter has been

differentiated from, or opposed to, radical democracy and social movements. Those

devices have been sort of what Europeans call protected designations of origin (PDO):