Call for People's Jury in UK —
An assembly of thought leaders and public intellectuals in the UK have written the Guardian newspaper calling for the convening of a People’s Jury. The initiative is propelled by Neil Lawson, who chairs the progressive activist organisation Compass, and Andrew Simms who chairs the leftist nef (the new economics foundation) thinktank. The Guardian effectively endorsed the idea by publishing an opinion piece about it written by Lawson and Simms. The Guardian followed up with an opinion piece by a staff writer that attacks the unaccountable “feral” elite who are mucking things up for the rest of us.
I definitely like the suggestion for an assembly of randomly selected citizens to provide transparent judgement with the aid of facilitation about decision making that is ostensibly in the public interest.
However, I would prefer that the initiative had right-wing support too, for without it there won’t be democratic legitimacy.
A significant proportion of the commentary to the above articles believes that a randomly selected cohort of citizens won’t be up the task. The commenters think they are better than everyone else, which in itself is a demonstration of elitism. The irony is that their rancorous responses only strengthen the case for drawing in a random panel of typical citizens who are not the “usual suspects” to deliberate sensibly and publicly with each other about policies and issues, to help inform public attitudes.
That all said, I am concerned that the attack on the “elites” is misplaced. We need expertise and leadership and we shouldn’t assume that all of them are insensitive to the diverse needs of the rest of us. I don’t share the cynical view that it is inevitable that power corrupts. However, giving power too long a leash does introduce the risk that that they may act inappropriately.
Any process that formally guides power to provide more responsible and publicly acceptable governance has to be a winner for everyone, including those in power.
Newspapers editors think they need conflict to sell. Instead, we need media that is brave enough to change the game completely. We don’t want to be angry any more.
Published under a Creative Commons License
I agree that the decidedly left-populist flavor this initiative has is to its detriment. Indeed, many weeks have gone by, and we have heard very little more about it.
That people who write in newspapers’ comment sections think highly of themselves, is a problem, I agree. They’re not a very representative bunch. I think there can be real damage done if people believe what’s going on in such forums is indicative of people’s “real” feelings – as indeed many have done in my own country, giving wider legitimacy to the extreme anti-islam conspiracy theories that fueled the Utøya killer’s hatred.
The people who post in newspaper comment sections (online and offline) tend to promote a “red in tooth and claw” view of free speech – a world of no moderation, no timers, where everyone is entitled to fight with all means for as much attention as they can. They are already a privileged class in this regard, it’s pretty self-serving.
So it’s no surprise many of them oppose sortition. At least the idea is coming out from obscurity. I learned from my friends over at Equality by Lot about two Spanish initiatives for sortition in government, arising from the debates surrounding the unstable situation down there.
I would love to see you participate on Equality by Lot. I see you have before, in connection with one of your posts being featured. If you come over anything sortition-related, please don’t hesitate to mail off a link to one of the posters over there, to get it ever so slightly more attention :)
Posted by Harald Korneliussen 14 September 2011 06:07 pm | link
Thanks, Harald. Yes, I’ve been paying attention to EbL, its on the rise for sure.
Posted by Ron Lubensky 14 September 2011 06:46 pm | link