Igor Chudov recently posted an irate piece lambasting a NYT essay by some WEF associate whose title provocatively states the seeming paradox that elections are bad for democracy.
“Such nonsense”, one is inclined to think. Elections, free and fair, are the very essence of democracy, are they not?
No. And the op-ed makes many relevant points in relation to corruption, unfettered ambition and so on.
Chudov is of course entirely correct in that the type of random appointment suggested in the NYT piece would most certainly serve as a vehicle for an impenetrable authoritarianism, don’t misunderstand me.
The set of candidates would surely be curated and hand-picked through any one of a vast set of mechanisms suitable for rigging the entire system, and the outcome would be an entrenched oligarchy much more able to carry out its intentions without frictions and partisan obstructions.
Indeed, a model of representation through random appointment would provide a set of benefits for the authoritarian management of public affairs that could hardly be had otherwise. The main ideological framework could be fixed and firmly established, while the turnover of legislators, ministers and council members would both minimize the emergence of factions and special interests, as well as provide the basis for a self-correcting dexterity in terms of problem-solving reminiscent of the purpose of free speech.
Stale paradigms could be more or less objectively assessed every election cycle since the new crew will be less invested, and so forth (which is why institutions such as science and education could benefit much from this form of organization).
All of this being said, however, a representation by drawing lots is a perfectly reasonable model for the governance of an anti-authoritarian society, whether in a decentralized, federative or council-democratic form.
Factionalism, for one, is undercut if not eliminated, since no stable cliques can be certain of holding office or wielding power for any longer period. Elite influence through corruption and propaganda is also challenged for similar reasons - there’s no electorate to court.
There’s also an important aspect of fostering competence and solidarity among the eligible citizenry. Everyone has the duty of maintaining the level of competence and well-rounded experience needed to face important political decisions, the cobbler as well as the brain surgeon. And, depending on how things are organized, everyone is likely to at least serve in a local political body for a number of occasions during his or her lifetime.
Again, this suggestion is likely as devious as they come, and we of course must emphasize that the mode of selecting the pool of candidates becomes the main avenue of corruption of a system such as this. Moreover, to introduce representation by lot in the thoroughly ideologized political and societal structure of modern industrial societies would likely not solve anything, nor be able to meaningfully challenge its faulty preconditions.
But I thoroughly disagree with Chudov that there’s anything “Marxist” about the risks towards entrenching oligarchy that he wants to underscore, or that appointment by random selection is in some sense inherently anti-democratic.
To be sure, it certainly will be anti-democratic if it’s implemented in relation to the current power structure, but at the end of the day, it holds many real advantages in comparison with the thoroughly corrupt “representative democracy” of modern Western societies.
And that’s precisely why the NYT essay is so devious.