I had a political science professor who held a similar opinion. I think citizens' assemblies are a pretty clever idea, and seem to have been used fruitfully at least in Ireland and Canada, but I...
A more radical alternative has been suggested by the veteran Canadian ecological campaigner David Suzuki, who wants to replace the country’s elected politicians with a randomly selected citizens’ assembly, which would contain everyday Canadians with no party affiliation who would each spend six years in office. In his view, such an assembly, resembling a form of political jury service, would deal more effectively with long-term issues such as climate change and biodiversity loss, and solve the problem of politicians obsessed with the next election.
I had a political science professor who held a similar opinion. I think citizens' assemblies are a pretty clever idea, and seem to have been used fruitfully at least in Ireland and Canada, but I wonder about their long term stability. For instance, since randomly chosen citizens tend to not be experts on the issues of a state, it seems like whatever advisory role exists would become super important. In the previously mentioned examples, a lot of care was placed into choosing experts and how those experts would present information (Would they try to portray the facts, or could they try to persuade? If facts, how mainstream did they have to be, and how much uncertainty was tolerable? How are we ensuring there are no selection biases? Et cetera.).
But, if citizens' assemblies were used as a formal legislative body, what institution informs and advises them, and how do we prevent corruption of that institution? Current democratic theory holds that votes keep elected officials accountable, and if they choose bad advisors, they'll be removed from office in 2-6 years. But, in this theory, the randomness and insulation keeps people from corruption, but is there really much of a mechanism to hold anyone accountable? Especially those adjacent to the legislative body, but who need subject-matter expertise, and thus cannot be randomly chosen (advisors, the people who choose the citizens, the people who teach about current law and norms, etc.).
I'm not saying there are no solutions here, just that I'm not aware of any. Does anyone have any thoughts on how a country run by permanent citizens' assembly would work?
Yes, you're right! Sorry if I wasn't clear. I think the call for citizens' assemblies is in part a response to the flaw you just pointed out. The old theory doesn't hold up in practice here, and...
Yes, you're right! Sorry if I wasn't clear. I think the call for citizens' assemblies is in part a response to the flaw you just pointed out. The old theory doesn't hold up in practice here, and we need more trustworthy ways to make decisions.
What I was trying to say is that I still think corruption is a problem in the new system. We don't want Alex Jones and the Tobacco lobby controlling the information displayed to our legislative body, even if that body can choose not to listen to them. (Part of the deliberative process is to come to the same page and become reasonably informed, and if no one trusts the advisory body, we're kinda screwed.) While the old system had the theory I described to deal with corruption (which you have astutely pointed out does not work well enough in practice), I'm curious if there are any theories about how to prevent corruption in the new system. There may be some in the literature that I missed (I haven't done a super deep dive), or you may just have one you think of off the cuff, but that's the part I'm currently struggling with.
There are more ways for lobbyists to sway politicians (traditional or randomly assigned) than just campaign contributions: social status, favours, PR (positive or negative), peer pressure,...
There are more ways for lobbyists to sway politicians (traditional or randomly assigned) than just campaign contributions: social status, favours, PR (positive or negative), peer pressure, preferential treatment and jobs for their families or themselves at the term's end, and outright lies, to name a few.
I'm tentatively in favour of a sortition-based system, but there will be a huge incentive for wealthy vested interests to attempt to corrupt those who are chosen, and preventing it is a problem with no simple or straightforward solution.
I've moved it to ~science and tagged it as "socialscience.political science". (I'm putting all topics about the social sciences in ~science, pending the creation of a ~socialscience group.)
I've moved it to ~science and tagged it as "socialscience.political science". (I'm putting all topics about the social sciences in ~science, pending the creation of a ~socialscience group.)
I had a political science professor who held a similar opinion. I think citizens' assemblies are a pretty clever idea, and seem to have been used fruitfully at least in Ireland and Canada, but I wonder about their long term stability. For instance, since randomly chosen citizens tend to not be experts on the issues of a state, it seems like whatever advisory role exists would become super important. In the previously mentioned examples, a lot of care was placed into choosing experts and how those experts would present information (Would they try to portray the facts, or could they try to persuade? If facts, how mainstream did they have to be, and how much uncertainty was tolerable? How are we ensuring there are no selection biases? Et cetera.).
But, if citizens' assemblies were used as a formal legislative body, what institution informs and advises them, and how do we prevent corruption of that institution? Current democratic theory holds that votes keep elected officials accountable, and if they choose bad advisors, they'll be removed from office in 2-6 years. But, in this theory, the randomness and insulation keeps people from corruption, but is there really much of a mechanism to hold anyone accountable? Especially those adjacent to the legislative body, but who need subject-matter expertise, and thus cannot be randomly chosen (advisors, the people who choose the citizens, the people who teach about current law and norms, etc.).
I'm not saying there are no solutions here, just that I'm not aware of any. Does anyone have any thoughts on how a country run by permanent citizens' assembly would work?
Yes, you're right! Sorry if I wasn't clear. I think the call for citizens' assemblies is in part a response to the flaw you just pointed out. The old theory doesn't hold up in practice here, and we need more trustworthy ways to make decisions.
What I was trying to say is that I still think corruption is a problem in the new system. We don't want Alex Jones and the Tobacco lobby controlling the information displayed to our legislative body, even if that body can choose not to listen to them. (Part of the deliberative process is to come to the same page and become reasonably informed, and if no one trusts the advisory body, we're kinda screwed.) While the old system had the theory I described to deal with corruption (which you have astutely pointed out does not work well enough in practice), I'm curious if there are any theories about how to prevent corruption in the new system. There may be some in the literature that I missed (I haven't done a super deep dive), or you may just have one you think of off the cuff, but that's the part I'm currently struggling with.
There are more ways for lobbyists to sway politicians (traditional or randomly assigned) than just campaign contributions: social status, favours, PR (positive or negative), peer pressure, preferential treatment and jobs for their families or themselves at the term's end, and outright lies, to name a few.
I'm tentatively in favour of a sortition-based system, but there will be a huge incentive for wealthy vested interests to attempt to corrupt those who are chosen, and preventing it is a problem with no simple or straightforward solution.
I’m not quite sure what the most appropriate group for this one is. It could also fit into ~enviro I think.
I've moved it to ~science and tagged it as "socialscience.political science". (I'm putting all topics about the social sciences in ~science, pending the creation of a ~socialscience group.)