We’re told this is a great idea:
Yet the citizens’ assembly was established nonetheless, and over the following six months something fascinating and inspiring occurred. An appointed chairwoman and 99 “ordinary” people, chosen at random and therefore completely varied in age, gender, regionality and socioeconomic status, did a remarkable job. They adopted some commendable principles for their debates, including respect, efficiency and collegiality. They listened to 25 experts and read 300 submissions. They heard each other out and compromised more effectively than elected representatives.
We’d have a certain sympathy for the idea if we all went with only such assemblies and thereby managed to kill off, entirely, the parasitism of the current political class. To the extent that that’s not just the post-consumption grumpiness of the Christmas port kicking in.
On a more considered, umm, consideration we’re against it. From the Electoral Reform Society:
Members were given information on the topic, heard from 25 experts and reviewed 300 submissions (out of around 12,000 received) from members of the public and interest groups.
The problem with such sortition and committee is that the power to determine the outcome rests with the selection of the experts to do the speaking, with the pick and choose of the 300 from the 12,000 submissions.
This is just a replay of the commitology of Leacock or Parkinson. Or, for those who remember their student politics, how everything was really decided in the junior sub-standing committee on committee submissions, which was really all four members of whatever the Trot Party was called that term, meeting at midnight on a Sunday in the basement behind the beware of the leopard sign.
Citizens’ juries, assemblies, sound great. Until one realises that all the power will belong to those who feed the information to them. We’ve just removed political power away from elections, away from democracy and deep into the bowels of the junior sub-standing committee on committee submissions.
So, no.
Now it is possible that that second bottle of port was a bad idea and therefore this is a little more grumpy than should be taken seriously. But we have heard of an idea from Athenian democracy. Where anyone could propose a law, everyone voted on it and if it passed then, well, that was the new law. If it didn’t pass then the proposer was taken ‘round the back and strangled. No, too extreme. But it would reduce the number of damn fool ideas put forward, wouldn’t it.