Book Review: Politics Without Politicians by Hélène Landemore

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

A second book review in a row? Well, yes it is! I just finished reading Politics Without Politicians by Hélène Landemore and it’s one you should definitely read. But let’s talk why.

Landemore’s thesis is simple: democracies in history had often used “lotteries” to select people for civic duties, along with citizen councils (often random too), rotating positions, referenda, and so on throughout history. Politics with less politicians or without politicians as we know them. It not will surprise you that someone writing a whole book in this is of course in favor of the idea that we can replace a lot of our politics with random selection and councils/parliaments.

The book is thus a breezy read as Landemore establishes her premise with historical example, then goes into a mixture of actual experience, actual implementations, research, and philosophy to justify her thesis. Her statement is simple – essentially reviving some elements of Athenian Democracy, then examining why she thinks it’d work, when it was tried, and what she’d do.

So spoilers, it’s actually very convincing, and in some ways surprising. If I were to compare it to something, it actually reminds me of my much-beloeved The Unaccountability Machine. It’s both obvious and not, and once you read it, you see things very differently.

Landemore describes our current crises and the idea of more randomized democracies as seen in Athens and in other states and societies, not necessarily democratic ones (a random council of nobles is still random). Random selection requires citizens to step up, reduces corruption, and requires building functional infrastructures to get things done. Our current political crises of modern times are, in her thesis, the result of a kind of “Electoral Aristocracy” that is clearly not responsive to people’s needs and is very disillusioning. And yes, she brings receipts on much of our dissatisfaction in our times.

Despite her cynicism about a lot of our current politics, Landemore is a passionate believer in democracy and citizenship. She wants more democracy, more power in the hands of people, and for voices to be heard. Indeed, ensuring people who are not currently engaged in politics can and will be engaged, is part of her thesis. Even when I find critiques (and I have a few) it’s clear she cares about the results and the people.

Landemore also looks at cases where randomized citizen councils were used in various countries to address issues – some of which she participated in. Coming from this direct viewpoint, she also describes experiences and why things worked – and didn’t – mostly focused on her native France. Landemore takes you into what it would be like, say, for twenty citizens to suddenly be asked to come up with policy for a referendum.

This personal experience, combined with her research, did help me understand why these kind of randomized councils and other approaches can work. If you have a diverse group of people and give them experts who respond as needed you can get a surprising amount of good ideas – something I’ve seen in my own management work. People who are responsible for results and dealing with each other as people will surprise you and probably break more than one of your stereotypes and assumptions.

Landemore did something very effectively – reminding us that our fellow citizens are probably more capable than we give them credit for. It’s just that they may be capable in different ways than us and that people coming together change. Some of her experiences made me understand my gaps, and in a few cases my arrogance. This, again, reminded me of my own worn in Project Management when people came together with just a bit of facilitation – and when I had my own assumptions proven wrong.

All of this of course reminds me of Agile, the productivity/project method I’ve used for years in various forms (sometimes inside other methods). A lot of Agile is “make it obvious, make it visible, make people responsible.” Though Agile usually lacks randomization, I see echos in Landemore’s writing.

It is clear from her writing Landemore has soured on the political classes, and even filtered, both the research she shares and the experience she has make a good case. Attempts at citizens councils often saw career politicians want to put on their own stamp, experts expect to be right all the time (thinking as experts, not impacted citizens), and so on. I finished the book with a better opinion of my fellow citizens, and a worsened one of our political class. Politicians can be distortive people, even if well-meaning, as things warp around them.

Ladenmore finishes with ways to implement more direct Democracy, and her thoughts of were to go next. She’s ready to go, clearly passionate, though I wished she’d done more to provide “next steps” and ‘who to talk to” that was more clearly spelled out. Still, I found some resources to investigate my own interest.

Ultimately, it’s hard to fault her case – we need more citizens and less politicians. Indeed, having more “governing-by-lottery” would mean people have to step up if called – and step up to help neighbors and friends and family who might be called upon. Certainly I’m a believer in her method because I am a believer in citizenship and this is a way to cultivate that.

As for flaws, there are moments her humor or references, especially about American figures, seems a bit off. There are a few cases where I wanted her to address some truly vile things we see like racism and religious fanaticism. But these are minor – she has a thesis, she justifies it well, and she takes us into the experiences and mechanics of it.

Much like The Unaccountability Machine, Politics Without Politicians is about why things are obviously wrong, how we probably had the solution, and what to do next. It’s also about giving a damn, which makes both books passionate. Maybe Landemore and Dan Davies should team up, so I have yet another book to go on about until people are tired of it.

A recommended read. Perhaps you’ll want complete rule-by-lottery, perhaps you’ll become a booster of citizen referendum, but I think you’ll have a lot to think about. Best of all, you’ll become a better citizen, and we need all of those we can get.

Steven Savage

Dispatches From The Bunker

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com and Steve’s Tumblr.  Find out more at my newsletter.)

I’m hunkered down at home, sheltering in place, like so many of you. At this rate I don’t expect to be going out like normal until the end of May. I’d like to blog more writing stuff, but it’s a bit challenging as my focus is different – getting through this.

The problem with “getting through this” is there is no going back to normal. Normal is gone and good riddance.

Normal led us to this mess. Poor planning, poor awareness, poor practice in too many areas led to suffering. Some countries have done well, but we’re seeing a lot haven’t.

Normal wasn’t as great as it seemed. We’re seeing these events rip the mask off of many flaws in America and other countries – underpaid but critical jobs, understaffed medical care and more.

Normal kept us from seeing better. How many of us realize we can work from home? That we could connect more efficiently? That delivery services could make life much easier (and save time, money, and maybe even pollution).

Normal can’t come back anyway. People will be dead, systems broken, new ideas present, problems revealed. There is no going back anyway.

The question is what we want to do next.

Look, we’ve found who we can rely on and who we can’t. We’ve seen the value of science over bullshit. We’ve seen that people really can rally to help out – and who will exploit the situation. We’re going to have a different world like it or not so damn well shape it.

And that’s overwhelming. It’s hard. It’s painful. We’re stressed, fearful, disrupted, and tired.

But know what? We might as well take what control that we can. We might as well take action when we can. We might as well do what we can. We can take our power ourselves and do something.

So here’s some thoughts for you – on an escalating scale.

  • Take a break. If you’re tired, take a break and rest. Recover your strength – that’s OK.
  • Check in with people regularly. Find out how they’re doing so you can rally.
  • Do something to help people – give a gift, make a meal, give a kind word. Even a minor action changes the world. One of my neighbors has a fruit tree and sets out the fruit for free.
  • Donate to a cause. Look there’s plenty of things out there to help with – your local city or state probably has some organizations to go to. Find one and give money. Its safe and remote.
  • Rally people. Introduce friends to each other. Connect people. Team people up.
  • Connect to a cause. Find a local or national org you can get involved in and DO IT. Start getting active now – and become empowered.

But through all of this? Keep up your creative work. Keep writing and drawing and cosplaying. Because that’s you, and you need to stay yourself.

We’ll get out of this bunker. Let’s make the world better.

Steven Savage

Civic Geek: When The Gods Speak

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com and Steve’s Tumblr.  Find out more at my newsletter.)

A bit of a change from my usual monthly civic geek posts, in this one I want to talk about religion and politics. It just won’t be in the way you expect.

My latest novel, A Bridge To The Quiet Planet is set in a a post-post apocalyptic techno-fantasy setting/ This was a world that suffered genocidal war, disagreeing gods, and unleashed weapons fusing science and sorcery. However, in the current setting, it seemed shockingly “together,” with a very stable society – and I began analyzing just why my imagination had made it such.

What I narrowed in on surprised me – and taught me a lesson.

In this setting, the gods are real and communicate with people. Now it’s a good three hundred gods, each of them an eccentric by human standards. However when someone speaks for a god, you’re pretty sure they’re actually speaking for that god – and if someone lies about a god’s intention, there’s a good chance said god is going to clear it up.

So you have a planet intertwined with oddball superintelligences, but at least everyone is pretty sure what they want and mean, or if they don’t everyone is equally confused. When there are conflicting messages, no one assumes that any one is right, but they ask the gods themselves.

That made me realize what had happened with our politics in America and in other countries and other histories; people who claimed to speak for the gods or gods cause a lot of issues.

When you believe someone has divine authority, that they speak for a powerful supernatural entity that controls your fate, you listen to them. You assume that person has some kind of direct communication to that god – which is probably a terrible assumption.

But it’s apparent on our world that a lot of people are saying damned different things about what their gods say. This disagreement should lead people to ask “hey, why are we getting different signals here?” This disagreement should lead us to ask various theological questions, from “how to talk to X god” to “hey is anyone here actually speaking for a god or is this bullshit.”

Caught up in tribalism, assuming all the time , too many humans think they have a direct line to a god or gods and everyone else is wrong. Not enough ask “well, where is this god to show up and clear up this shit?” People don’t want that – they want tribalism.

In theory if you thought a god was really out there, and you wished to know it’s will, you should embark on a spiritual journey yourself. You should try to be open to it telling you what’s going on – treat it like a person and assume that it will tell you. The last thing you should do is assume someone yelling about things is some direct conduit to the divine.

How many of our problems are caused by A) assuming that someone is speaking for a god, and B) not asking questions or even giving the god the respect to ask them.

This kind of tells me how many people really don’t take their god or gods seriously. They’ll gladly listen t someone say what they want to hear, but don’t deal with the theological discomfort of reconciling conflicting messages. They don’t really respect their god or gods enough to treat them as people and ask them.

It’s a peculiar kind of blasphemy, not giving your god credit enough to clear things up. It leads to blasphemous actions as people uncritically carry out the orders of men thinking they’re from a god. It leads to a kind of disrespect to attribute the voice of a great supernatural being to be reflected in the rantings of many grifters and criminals.

Our problem isn’t that we listen to gods – it’s that we listen to humans.

– Steve