Table Of ContentContents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..iv
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. TheBlindBreakanditsImplications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2. SortitionandPoliticalConsolidationinAncientAthens . . 31
3. TheBreviaandtheScrutiny.TwoLotterySchemesfrom
Late-MedievalandRenaissanceItaly . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4. SortitionandtheDefenceoftheSecond
FlorentineRepublic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
5. SortitioninEnglandandAmericaintheSeventeenth
andEighteenthCenturies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
6. SortitionduringtheFrenchRevolutionaryDecade. . . . . 188
7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Appendix:OntheDeclineofSortition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
THE POLITICAL
POTENTIAL OF
SORTITION
A STUDY OF THE RANDOM
SELECTION OF CITIZENS
FOR PUBLIC OFFICE
Oliver Dowlen
imprint-academic.com
Copyright © Oliver Dowlen, 2008
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form
without permission, except for the quotation of brief passages
in criticism and discussion.
Published in the UK by Imprint Academic
PO Box 200, Exeter EX5 5YX, UK
Published in the USA by Imprint Academic
Philosophy Documentation Center
PO Box 7147, Charlottesville, VA 22906-7147, USA
Digital edition converted and distributed by
Andrews UK Limited www.andrewsuk.com
Print ISBN - 9781845401795
PDF ISBN - 9781845407049
A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the
British Library and US Library of Congress
The Luck of the Draw:
SORTITION AND PUBLIC POLICY
SeriesEditor:BarbaraGoodwin
UniversityofEastAnglia
Amajornewseriesonthe
useofrandomisation
ineducation,politics
andotherareasofpublicpolicy
ThePoliticalPotentialofSortition,OliverDowlen
978-1845401375(cloth)
TheAthenianOption,AnthonyBarnettandPeterCarty
978-1845401399(pbk.);978-1845401405(cloth)
TheNatureandUseofLotteries,ThomasGataker(ed.ConallBoyle)
978-1845401177(pbk.)
APeople'sParliament,KeithSutherland
ACitizenLegislature,ErnestCallenbachandMichaelPhillips
978-1845401085(pbk.);978-1845401382(cloth)
JusticebyLottery,BarbaraGoodwin
1845400259(pbk)
imprint-academic.com/sortition
Preface
Theoriginsofthisbookliebackin1994inaproposalmadebythe
LabourCommitteefortheDemocraticAccountabilityofSecretServices,a
grouping to which I then belonged. The proposal, which was not
followedupwithanyorganisationaldetail,wasthatsecretservices
shouldbemonitoredforabusesofhumanrights,andthatthemoni-
torswhoundertookthetaskshouldbeselectedrandomly.Theidea
was the brainchild of Dr Keith Nilsen whose general orientation
wasthatthemodernpoliticalarenawassodominatedbycovertfac-
tionalismthatfundamentalvaluessuchastruthandintegritywere
under serious threat. His solution lay in establishing institutions
whoseimpartialitywasnotopentoquestion.
While I understood the reasoning behind this and other similar
projectsadvancedbyDrNilsen,Ifeltthatadvocacywasnotenough
and that further investigation of the question of random selection
wasnecessarytodiscoveritsfullpotential.NorwasIentirelyhappy
with Dr Nilsen’s claim that the anti-factional capacity of sortition
1
was a self-evidenttruth. Truths cancertainly be understood from
practice, but in the case of a largely discontinued practice such as
sortition they have to be argued for anew and evidence (old and
new)presentedinsupportofthosearguments.Mymainmotivation
for this study lay in the idea that a broadly-based and open
discourse on the potential of sortition was a good thing. Such a
discourse,Ifelt,couldbetakenforwardbyathoroughexploration
of how sortition had been used and a principled analysis of the
propertiesofthelotteryprocess.
In2002Iwasfortunateenoughtostudythesubjectforadoctorate
at New College Oxford under the supervision of Mark Philp and,
initially, Elizabeth Frazer. Through the internet group of scholars
[1] Nilsen (2004). Nilsen also made proposals for the use of sortition in Iraq,
detailsofwhichcanbefoundinNilsen(2007).HealsofoundedtheSocietyfor
DemocracyincludingRandomSelectioninSouthLondonin2000.
viii The Political Potential of Sortition
organised by Conall Boyle (aptly named the Kleroterians) my com-
pleted thesis then reached the attention of Keith Sutherland of
Imprint Academic who was planning a series on sortition. I was
delightedtobeaskedtobepartofthisexcitinginitiativeandtobein
thegoodcompanyofothercontributorstothesubject,including,of
course,ThomasGataker.
Thisbookis,inallessentials,are-workingofmydoctoralthesis;
but there are some important changes of emphasis that need to be
noted.Extraemphasisisplacedontheimportanceofthe‘activecon-
text’andthe‘constitutionalcontext’ofeachapplicationorproposed
application of sortition. This is to help the reader to see how the
level of detail advanced during the historical narratives links into
the arguments about what sortition can bring to the political com-
munity.Ihavealsoaddedaglossaryandanumberofdiagramsin
order to help the less specialist reader to get a clearer idea of the
schemes and contexts where lot was used or advocated. I have
placed bibliographical notes at the end of every chapter save the
last.Thesearedesignedtogivethereaderanoverviewofthemain
sourcesthatIusedintheresearch.Theyalsogivesomeindicationof
the selection of background literature that I used that would not
otherwisebeindicatedinthefootnotes.Theyalsoincludedetailsof
thelocationofsomeprimarydocuments.
In addition I have included a brief appendix on the decline of
sortition. Because this question was not part of my original study
planIthoughtitbesttomakeaclearseparationbetweenthisshort,
somewhatspeculative,sectionandthemainbodyofthebook.
IwouldliketoacknowledgetheroleofKeithNilseninintroduc-
ingmetothesubjectofsortition;thehelpofMarkPhilpinkeeping
me on track during my thesis preparation; the help of Miriam
RonzoniandTizzianaTorresiinthetranslationofGuicciardini’sDel
mododieleggere…;andthehelpofAntoineVergneintracingthedoc-
umentaryevidencefortheFrenchsplitlegislatureproposalof1793.
MythanksalsogotoRachelHammersleyforpointingmeinthe
direction of the Lesueur/Rutledges draft constitution of 1792, and
toDrO.Murrayforindicatinghowlotwasusedfordecidinginheri-
tanceinAncientAthens.InadditionIwouldliketothankmy(youn-
ger)fellowstudentsatthePoliticsDepartmentofOxfordUniversity
fortheirenthusiasmandencouragement;ConallBoyleforbringing
usstudentsofsortitiontogether;KeithSutherlandforhisinitiative
in bringing out the series; Barbara Goodwin for editing this work;
andmywifeBereniceforherhelpandsupport.
Introduction
Thisisthestudyofoneparticularaspectofgovernment:therandom
selectionofpoliticalofficersbysortitionorlot.Sortitionwaswidely
usedinAncientAthensandinthecityrepublicsofItalyinthelate
medievalandrenaissanceperiods.Therehasthereforebeenacon-
siderable investment in this form of selection during periods of
greatimportanceinthedevelopmentofourpoliticalideasandprac-
tices. With the notable exception of jury selection, however, it is
largelyabsentfromtoday’selectoralpolitics.Despitethistherehas
been a recent revival of interest in sortition both from academic
writers and from those involved in practical politics. Much of this
hasbeenaresponsetoperceivedproblemswithliberaldemocracy
suchasthegrowinggulfbetweencitizenandprofessionalpolitician
and the exclusion of significantminority groups fromthe political
process.
Inthe1970sand80stherewasagrowinginterestincommunity
politicsandrandomly-selectedcitizens’jurieswereseenasameans
ofadvancingtheideasofatrulyparticipatorydemocracy.Although
thecitizens’jurymodelsofthisperiodadvocatedlotasthemeans
bywhichcitizensweretobeselectedtoserve,therewaslittleatten-
tiongiventotheexactcontributionthatsortitionwastomake.From
the later 1980s and 1990s, however, a number of more ambitious
sortive schemes began to surface, some of which sought to find a
closermatchbetweenthequalitiesofsortitionandthepurposefor
whichitwastobedeployed.Theseincludedschemesfortheselec-
1
tionofoneorotherchamberoftheUKparliamentbylot, aproposal
to elect a truly representative Citizen’s Legislature for the United
2
Statesbydrawingmembersrandomlyfromthecitizenbody, anda
[1] BarnettandCarty(1998/2008);Sutherland(2004;2008).
[2] CallenbachandPhillips(1985/2008).
2 The Political Potential of Sortition
3
scheme for randomly selected monitors for secret services. This
coincidedwithadebate,mainlyamongstpoliticaltheoristsandphi-
losophers, which explored the proposition that the lotteries could
4
provideajustmeansofdistributingsocialgoods.
In 2007, however, the French presidential candidate Ségolène
Royalwenttothepollswithamanifestothatincludedsettingupcit-
izens’juries,selectedbylot,tooverseetheworkofelectedrepresen-
tatives. Thisindicatesthatsortitionmightbeabouttoescapefrom
therealmsoftheoryandthatverysoonselectionofcitizensforpub-
lic office by lot could once again become part of our day-to-day
politicalpractice.
Whilethisbookshouldbeseenasacontributiontoanexpanding
discourse on the subject, I do not advocate any particular scheme,
nor,indeed,doIpresentargumentstopersuadethereaderthatthe
modernre-introductionoflotwouldnecessarilybeagoodthing.I
amnotentirelysurethatwearereadyforit—lotteriesarenotareg-
ular part of our current political culture and we lack any practical
knowledge of how lottery-based schemes could actually operate
withinthepoliticalarena.Mycontributionisaccordinglybasedon
the premise that a certain amount of theoretical and historical
ground-clearingisrequiredinorderthataprincipledandinformed
frameworkforunderstandingthepoliticalvalueofsortitionmight
beestablished.WhileImakesomesuggestionsabouthowwecould
approach the modern application of sortition in my concluding
chapter,Ileaveopenthequestionofwhethersuchare-introduction
isnecessary.
I therefore set out with the straightforward aim of identifying
whatbenefitstherandomselectionofpoliticalofficerscouldbring
tothepoliticalcommunity.Thisissimplydefinedbythebook’stitle
ThePoliticalPotentialofSortition,butsomeaspectsofthistaskarefar
fromsimple.Byapplyingtheterm‘potential’totheprojectIaddress
theideathatthereisaspecialpowerorcapacityinherentinthelot-
terythatisabsentfromotherformsofselectionordecision-making.
It also suggests that there are some circumstances, contexts or lot-
teryschemesthatwillrealisethisandbringittofruition,othersthat
willnot,andothersthatwilldosoonlypartiallyorincompletely.To
investigatehowthisoperatesourstartingpointhastobethelottery
procedureitself—or,tobemoreaccurate,therelationshipbetween
lotteryform(whatalotteryis)anditsfunction(whattaskitisbeing
[3] Nilsen(2007).
[4] Goodwin(2005);Elster(1989);Duxbury(1999).
Introduction 3
asked to perform). I attend to this analytical task in Chapter One
whereIidentifythedefiningfeatureandchiefoperatingcharacter-
isticofalllotteriesasthe‘blindbreak’.Thisisthezoneatthecentre
of the lottery from which all rational activity is deliberately
excluded. I therefore characterise the blind break as ‘arational’ to
distinguishitfromtheoperationsofboththerationalandtheirratio-
nal.Itisinthiscentralfeaturethatthepotentialofsortitionlies,and
oncethisisidentifieditisthenpossibletotalkofapplicationsthat
makeapositivevirtueoftheblindbreak,andthosethat,forwhat-
ever reason, do not. We can then assess any application by asking
(and hopefully answering) the question ‘is lot being asked to do
whatlotdoesbest?’Theidentificationoftheblindbreakalsohelps
metomakeacriticalappraisaloftheroleoflotinprobabilitytheory
and sampling methods and to investigate the nature of weighted
lotteries.
AnotherdevicethatIemployinordertohelpdiscussanddefine
theactionofalotteryiswhatIcallthe‘boxofpossibleepithets’.This
follows from the indisputable fact that a lottery is a mechanical
decision-making process. If we wish to describe the qualities of a
decision made by a lottery, then the epithet, or adjective we use
must denote a non-human quality—in other words a quality that
does not pertain to the human act of making a decision. To help
simplify this I imagine a box containing all possible non-human
epithets.Allofthesecanbeusedtodescribealotterydecision;we
then have to ask which is the most useful for any given analytical
task.InChapterOneIpresentthisideaandexplainwhyIsingleout
theterm‘arational’asthemostimportantofthesepossibletermsof
description.
ThischapteristhenfollowedbyfivechaptersinwhichIattempt
toapplythesefindingstothepastpracticeofsortitioninthepoliti-
calarena.Todefinethe‘political’mystarting-pointispoliticalprac-
tice.Myfocusthroughoutthisstudyisontheconceptofthepolitical
communityandtheprocessbywhichpeoplehaveutilisedwhatever
means they thought necessary to establish efficient, inclusive gov-
ernmentandtodefenditagainstdangerssuchasfactionalfragmen-
tation or arbitrary oppression. It is in the application of these
rule-governedproceduresandinstitutionsandinthehabitsofcol-
lectivebehaviourtheycreatethatwefindthesubjectmatterofpoli-
tics.InbroadertermsIwoulddescribepoliticsasthe‘artofthecity’
in which the term ‘city’ applies to a community of people rather
than merely an urban geographical location. It is also a fitting
descriptionbecause,historically,manyofthemostsignificantinno-
