Sortition, its advocates and its critics: An empirical analysis of citizens’ and MPs’ support for random selection as a democratic reform proposal
| DOI | 10.1177/0192512120949958 |
| Author | Vincent Jacquet,Christoph Niessen,Min Reuchamps |
| Published date | 01 March 2022 |
| Date | 01 March 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512120949958
International Political Science Review
2022, Vol. 43(2) 295 –316
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0192512120949958
journals.sagepub.com/home/ips
Sortition, its advocates and its
critics: An empirical analysis of
citizens’ and MPs’ support for
random selection as a democratic
reform proposal
Vincent Jacquet , Christoph Niessen and
Min Reuchamps
Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Belgium
Abstract
This article explores the prospects of an increasingly debated democratic reform: assigning political offices
by lot. While this idea is advocated by political theorists and politicians in favour of participatory and
deliberative democracy, the article investigates the extent to which citizens and MPs actually endorse
different variants of ‘sortition’. We test for differences among respondents’ social status, disaffection with
elections and political ideology. Our findings suggest that MPs are largely opposed to sortitioning political
offices when their decision-making power is more than consultative, although leftist MPs tend to be in favour
of mixed assemblies (involving elected and sortitioned members). Among citizens, random selection seems
to appeal above all to disaffected individuals with a lower social status. The article ends with a discussion of
the political prospects of sortition being introduced as a democratic reform.
Keywords
Democratic innovation, sortition, random selection, deliberative democracy, parliamentary studies, public
opinion
Democracy is an ideal that is never fully attained in real-world politics and democratic regimes
continually evolve in response to internal and external pressures. Calls for institutional transforma-
tion can take various forms, such as changing the electoral system, decentralizing authority or
developing direct democratic tools. Given that the transformation of democracy is not linear, some
reform attempts succeed while others remain pure reflections. A crucial factor in this process is the
degree of support from political elites and citizens (Bedock, 2017; Renwick, 2010).
This article focuses on an emerging democratic reform proposal that is increasingly debated in
contemporary representative democracies: the assignment of political offices by lot. Until recently,
Corresponding author:
Vincent Jacquet, Institute of Political Science Louvain-Europe (ISPOLE), Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain),
Place Montesquieu 1 bte L2.08.07, Louvain-la-Neuve, B-1348, Belgium.
Email: vincent.jacquet@uclouvain.be
949958IPS0010.1177/0192512120949958International Political Science ReviewJacquet et al.
research-article2020
Article
296 International Political Science Review 43(2)
‘sortition’ was mainly known to historians of Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Manin, 1997).
However, since the spread of deliberative democratic innovations in the 1990s (Jacquet and van der
Does, 2020; Smith, 2009), an increasing number of scholars, activists and even elected representa-
tives have called for the (re)introduction of random selection in contemporary politics. One of the
most prominent proposals in this respect is to randomly select (some of the) members of legislative
assemblies (Gastil and Wright, 2018; Zakaras, 2010).
This echoes other democratic reform initiatives in representative democracies that aim at shift-
ing political decision-making power from elites to citizens (Dalton et al., 2003). According to their
proponents, the diversified profiles of this new type of representative, as well as the absence of
electoral commitments could narrow the gap between citizens and politics (Gastil and Wright,
2018). Because of these discussions, it is worth considering what the popular and political support
for such a democratic reform actually is.
The aim of this article is to empirically scrutinize the appeal of sortition for political elites and
citizens; it does not assess the normative merits of sortition. We seek to uncover different factors
that underpin support for various models of the sortition proposal. In the absence of extensive
scholarship on support for sortition, we draw on the existing literature about other democratic
reforms, including referendums. In this regard, we study the effect of three main variables: respond-
ents’ status (the socioeconomic profile of citizens, the level of professionalization for MPs), their
dissatisfaction with the current electoral system and their political ideology (left-wing vs. right-
wing orientations). We conduct our research in Belgium, a country where there has been increasing
debate about the institutionalization of sortition.
Our findings suggest that MPs appear largely opposed to sortitioning political offices when their
decision-making power is more than consultative, although leftist MPs tend to be in favour of
mixed assemblies (involving elected and sortitioned members). Among citizens, random selection
seems to appeal above all to disaffected citizens with a lower social status.
We begin by presenting the idea of sortition, its history and the issues it raises for the future of
representative democracies. After developing our expectations regarding the factors that may
explain citizens’ and MPs’ support for different uses of random selection in politics, we briefly
describe the Belgian context and its relevance for the research. We then introduce the methodology
of our study and present the main results of the analysis. We conclude by discussing the implica-
tions of these results for the prospects of sortition as a democratic reform proposal.
Analysing citizens’ and MPs’ support for the use of random
selection in politics
Selecting political officials by lot
In the public arena, random selection can fulfil various functions, for example allocating scarce
goods (e.g. university admissions) and burdens (e.g. enlistment of people in military service).
In this context, lotteries can be seen as a just procedure when ‘it is important that bad reasons
are kept out of the decision’ (Stone, 2011: vii). Drawing lots can also be used to assign public
offices. The most well-known contemporary illustration in this respect is the selection of jurors
in the judicial system, but there have been other uses in the past. In Athens during the 4th cen-
tury BC, random selection was attached to the ideal of equality among citizens and was per-
ceived as a more democratic selection procedure than voting (Manin, 1997). It was used to
ensure rotation in offices and avoid the professionalization of politics. In some Italian republics
during the Middle Ages, sortition was also practised to prevent power being concentrated in the
hands of a few factions and families (Manin, 1997).
To continue reading
Request your trial