No Democracy without Sortition :
the cause of the causes of our powerlessness
is that we let the political professionals draw up
and modify the Constitution

First, here is the text (complete) of the 15 minutes synthesis
that I had prepared for the TEDx conference (on March 22nd, 2012 in Paris) :

• pdf file:
http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/Europe/Etienne_Chouard_2012_No-democracy-without-Sortition.pdf

• PowerPoint ppt file:
http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/Europe/Etienne_Chouard_2012_No-democracy-without-Sortition.ppt

• Mp3 file:
http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/Europe/Etienne_Chouard_2012_No-democracy-without-Sortition.mp3

L'homme qui parle anglais ci-dessus s'appelle Michael. Il habite non loin de chez moi. Il m'aide énormément à m'exprimer en anglais, à l'écrit et à l'oral, ici et ailleurs (et donc à semer nos graines d'idées plus loin, à travers le monde). Je dois lui dire ma profonde reconnaissance. Quand il parle anglais, c'est de la musique. Il est le plus gentil des hommes. Merci Michael.

---

I also prepared my contribution for the Sortition Workshop in Trinity College of Dublin (Ireland, 12 October 2012):

• Bilingual pdf file:
http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/Europe/20121011_No_democracy_without_sortition-Workshop_at_Dublin-Etienne_Chouard.pdf

Étienne Chouard
Marseille, France
http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/Europe/



Lottery workshop at Trinity College of Dublin
11-12 October 2012
http://www.tcd.ie/policy-institute/events/Lottery_workshop_Oct12.php

.

This workshop, which was about Sortition as a democratic Institution, was based on an initial text by Peter stone, Gil Delannoi and Oliver Dowlen: http://www.tcd.ie/policy-institute/events/Lottery_workshop_Oct12.php

In order to be able to make an oral commentary on the initial text, I had to prepare the following written document. I hope that you find it useful.

Thank you for your kind invitation and for your attention.

Étienne Chouard,
31 October 2012,
http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/Europe

PS: I don’t know if you wanted this translated but it is something I had already corrected.

---

Comments on Peter Stone’s report (Dublin)

On Part 1
(benefits of drawing by lots in politics)

I have, myself, drawn up a list which recaps on the vices of elections and the virtues of sortition (Cf. Annexes). I have found most of these virtues in your report, and I shall therefore not insist on our numerous points of agreement.

I should nevertheless like to highlight some important, but frequently neglected points:

1. The equalizing virtue of sortition (the rulers of today are the ruled over of tomorrow) must be defended not only for itself but for its main consequence i.e. rulers (producers of the law) who know that they will soon become ruled over (subject to the laws in question) will naturally and mechanically take decisions that are in accordance with the public interest (because they know that they will be personally impacted), whereas elections, on the contrary, incite elected representatives to draw up laws that are all the more severe and contrary to the public interest since they know that they themselves will be sheltered from them (this always happens when they are the people who draw up the constitution).

2. This same virtue works the other way around (the ruled over of today will be the rulers of tomorrow) and has another important and pedagogical knock-on effect that is well expressed by de Tocqueville:

3. The second virtue that we should highlight:

Sortition (just like real democracy) is based on a healthy and constructive MISTRUST of any power: it does NOT assume the virtue of the people who are designated (unlike election), and this powerful feature of REALISM explains the multitude of finicky and permanent CONTROLS that necessarily go with sortition.

This makes the drawing by lots a much safer procedure for those who are being governed, and by definition, a real (sustainable) guarantee against the abuse of power.

It should also be noted that this fact makes sortition (with its permanent controls) a much better procedure for assigning positions in large political communities.

4. If I only had 5 minutes to talk about the political benefits of sortition, I would particularly insist on a very striking (and totally misunderstood) feature, if compared to elections:

In Athens, during the 200 years of sortition, the RICH people NEVER conducted the affairs (rich people were never numerous enough to take decisions at the Assembly), while, during the 200 years of elections, the rich have ALWAYS been the ones who govern (rich people can easily help their servants to capture the political power by financing their electoral campaigns; and this plutocratic regime was kindly called "capitalism"), as if the election always gave power to the rich.

Please, note this.

I believe this systemic delinking (uncoupling) of economic power and political power (by putting political power out of reach of the rich) is the most important effect of the drawing by lots and the inseparable characteristic of a democracy worthy of the name.

On part 2
(HOW to integrate drawing by lot in the institutions)

I see several ways of using sortition in politics, and it is important to distinguish these different uses to avoid confusion, because the arguments differ from one case to another:

1. Full direct democracy, like the Athenian one: representatives chosen by drawing by lots are weakened, so that representatives remain servants and can never become masters. Sortition is then used by the people to protect their own power at the assembly against their representatives.

2. Representative government improved by integrating citizens in the exercise of power:

• In addition to the House of Parties, composed of professional representatives like today, a second Legislative Chamber could be chosen at random: it would be called the "House of Citizens' => composed of amateurs, it would reflect the nation.

• All established bodies could be placed under the daily supervision of several Control Chambers, all drawn by lot.

• A "House of Referendum", chosen at random, could examine all suggestions, even the individual ones, to choose those to be submitted to (the very essential) popular initiative referendum.

3. But (by far) the most important use of drawing by lot is that of the Constituent Assembly: indeed, whatever the modality chosen to integrate sortition in our institutions (drawing by lot all officials so that all citizens can be legislators, drawing by lot of one of the two legislative chambers, drawing by lot of the different Control Chambers...), NONE of these reforms, absolutely none, will ever be implemented by an elected Constituent Assembly. EVER!

Any Constituent Assembly elected among professional politicians will always - by definition and inevitably be poisoned by the most serious conflicts of interest.

Elected officials will never be able to institute (against themselves) the controls that we all need.

It is therefore of the utmost importance (and the motivation of my trip here is to come and talk about it), it is completely strategic, to place the drawing by lots of the Constituent Assembly at the forefront of our priorities.

If not, we are condemned to sterile chatter of a people rendered powerless by a false constitution, because we do not attack the problem at its root, because we gesticulate about consequences without identifying the cause of causes, while politicians continue to establish the finest workings of the plutocracy which guarantees their antisocial privilege.

Thank you for your kind invitation and for your attention.

Étienne Chouard

http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/Europe

---

Annexes

The election is THE CAUSE which allows merchants to colonize the City

Many of us complain about the colonization of our imagination by merchants (that is to say, ultimately, by the bankers, that are always becoming the richest merchants): gradually, merchants succeed in making us believe that yarn that "everything that has a price has a value and that everything that has no price has no value" while, on the contrary, all that really matters (love, quietude, happiness, peace, passion, fulfillment, joy, honour ...) does not have a price, and what has a price often has little or no real value.

But the nuclear heart of this colonization of our imagination (and of our institutions) by merchants, is the election because it is the election that allows the rich merchants to help the elected to be elected in order to make the elected DEPENDENT on the rich, INDEBTED so to speak.

Somehow, ELECTION enables the generalization in the political arena SERVITUDE BY DEBT, developed by the money merchants to force all people to work for them.

Through the political mechanism of the election, the merchants place their merchant priests throughout the social body in a position to influence public choices to their advantage.

THE WEAK LINK of this colonization of politics by economics, IS THE ELECTION!

And this Achilles' heel of the rich is within the reach of the poor, but only if the poor stop being so proud, thinking stupidly (and denial of all the contrary facts that prove their error) that their collective will (though easily deceived) is better than chance (yet incorruptible) in the designation of political servants of the city.

It would be easy and judicious to replace election by chance, the usual gamemaster in nature, and —experience proves— always respectful of equilibrium and the survival of all.

THINGS ARE WELL DONE BY CHANCE, we forget it because of our pretentiousness: chance is a probability that is not subject to our control (itself vulnerable to bullshit, easy to deceive); CHANCE IS INCORRUPTIBLE.

The ELECTION, IDEALISM supposing TRUST (before abandoning the idea of governing)-vs- SORTITION, REALISM supposing MISTRUST (before organizing to govern)

It is important to understand a paradox (or a contradiction): contrary to appearances, the election is based on trust, while the sortition is based on mistrust. The election is based on an ideal (in my opinion perfectly inaccessible and masking a fraud) that an elected official would be righteous by the mere fact of being elected and would remain durably due to the same election (also intended to enable a sanction by non-reelection), the people being supposed to be able to choose their masters... which is extravagant, a true myth, completely unrealistic.

Whereas, on the contrary, the Athenians, very pragmatic, knew themselves well, distrusted each other and built institutions acknowledging the reality of their imperfections and based on distrust, on permanent control of the representatives who were the masters of nobody; institutions relying on the staging of conflicts, on contradictory arguments, during public debates, in which no decision could be taken without all having been forced to listen and publicly refute the arguments of the worst opponents.

The election is a political abdication, renunciation, a gesture of trust before consenting to obey for several years; it is a political organization that only leaves to people the hopeless right to choose their masters.

Whereas sortition is at the heart of a political organization which embodies a desire of all men to keep political power and to appoint only servile executors to represent them.

It must not be forgotten that in a democracy, it is not the people who have been drawn by lot that are in power (they used to be called "magistrates"): it is the Assembly of People in body that exercises full political power. The people drawn by lots only serve to perform the tasks that the Assembly can not perform itself: e.g., the preparation and publication of the agenda, the execution of the decisions of the Assembly, the physical organization of the draw, the accountability, etc.

---

7 vices of the election and 11 virtues of sortition, let's recap:

7 VICES OF THE ELECTION:

1. The election leads to lying: first to come to power and secondly to keep it, because candidates can not be elected, and re-elected, unless their image is good: it mechanically leads to lying, about the future and the past.

2. Election leads to corruption: “sponsored” politicians must inevitably "return the favor" to their sponsors, those who have financed their election campaign: so, corruption is inevitable, by the very existence of the campaign, the cost of which is inaccessible to the candidate alone. The system of election therefore allows, and even imposes, the corruption of politicians (which probably suits some wealthy economic actors).

Thanks to the principle of ruinous campaigns, our representatives are for sale (and our freedoms along with it).

3. The election encourages the grouping into leagues and submits political action to clans and especially to their leaders, with its procession of turpitudes linked to the logic of hierarchical organizations and the ultra priority (critical) the quest for power.

Political parties impose their candidates, which makes our choices artificial. Because of the participation of political groups in electoral competition (unfair competition), the election deprives the most isolated individuals of any chance to participate in government of the City and this fosters the lack of political interest (or even rejection) by the citizens.

4. The election delegates… and therefore exempts (keep away) citizens from daily political activity and promotes the formation of castes of elected people, political professionals for life, moving away from their constituents to finally no longer represent anyone but themselves, turning the protection promised by the election into a political muzzle.

5. The election only ensures the legitimacy of elected people without any guarantee of distributive justice in the distribution of charges: an Assembly of officials and doctors can not understand the common good as would an Assembly drawn by lot.

An elected Assembly is never representative.

6. Paradoxically, the election stifles resistance against the abuse of power: it reduces our precious freedom of speech to an episodic vote every five years, vote perverted by a fake bipartism offering only false choices. The advice of "useful vote" is a political gag.

7. The election selects by definition those who seem "the best", some citizen deemed to be superior to the voters, and thereby forfeits the principle of equality (yet posted everywhere, falsely): by construction, the election designates more leaders who look for power (dominators) instead of representatives who accept power (mediators, listening and serving the citizens).

The election is deeply aristocratic, not democratic at all. The term "democratic election" is an oxymoron (a blend of contradictory words).

A major disadvantage of this elite, it is this feeling of power that develops in the elected representatives to the point where they finally take any liberties.

IN FACT, for 200 years (since the early 19th century), the election has always given political power to the rich and only to them, never to the others: the election of political representatives enables COUPLING political power and economic power, in a lasting manner, gradually creating irresponsible and unaccountable monsters writing the laws for themselves and appropriating the monopoly of public power for private gain.

11 VIRTUES OF SORTITION:

1. The procedure of the draw is fair and impartial: it ensures distributive justice (logical consequence of the principle of political equality stated as central goal of democracy).

2. The draw prevents corruption (it even deters corrupters: it is impossible and unnecessary to cheat, it avoids intrigues): leaving no room for any will, neither for the one nor the other, it gives no chance to cheating or manipulation of of people’s will.

3. The draw never creates rancour: no vanity to have been chosen, no resentment at not having been chosen: it has virtues to pacify the City, systemically.

4. All participants, representatives and represented are really made equal.

5. Chance, reproducing rarely twice the same choice, naturally leads to the rotation of responsibilities and mechanically prevents the formation of a politician class always tending to pride themselves on their condition and always seeking to enjoy privileges.

The major protective principle is this: the governors are more respectful of the governed when they know with certainty that they will soon return themselves to the ordinary condition of the governed.

6. The draw is easy, fast and economical.

7. Chance and large numbers naturally and mechanically, make for a representative sample. Nothing better than the draw to compose an Assembly that looks exactly like the people who want to be represented. No need for quotas, no risk of intrigues.

8. Knowing that he may be drawn encourages every citizen to learn and to participate in public controversy: it is a pedagogical way of intellectual emancipation.

9. Having been drawn pushes citizens to forget their personal preoccupations and to be concerned about the common world; their designation and the public eyes placed upon them encourage them to learn and to develop skills through their work, just as it does for politicians: it is a pedagogical way towards citizen responsability, all citizens.

10. To prefer the drawing by lots is to refuse giving up power of direct suffrage to the Assembly, and it is to attribute the highest importance to effective controls of all representatives: so, the draw accompanied by drastic controls at all levels, is better suited than the election (which assumes that voters are familiar with elected officials and their daily actions) to large entities. (While we usually hear the opposite.)

11. IN FACT, for 200 years of drawing by lots every day (the fifth and fourth century before JC in Athens), the rich NEVER governed, and the poor always did. (The rich lived very comfortably, do not worry, but they could not just grab without limitation, for want of political control.)

This is essential: mechanically, inevitably, irresistibly, the draw uncouples political and economic power. This is a very clever way to weaken the powers in order to prevent abuse.

It is therefore tempting to think that it is the election of politicians who made "capitalism" possible (we should better say "scumism"), and that the draw would deprive the capitalists of their principal tool of domination.

Étienne Chouard

http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/Europe/tirage_au_sort.php

http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/Europe/traductions

---

http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/Europe/tirage_au_sort.php

---

No Democracy without Sortition:
the cause of the causes of our powerlessness
is that we let the political professionals draw up
and modify the Constitution

http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/Europe/Etienne_Chouard_2012_No-democracy-without-Sortition.pdf

Hello :o)

I have come to talk to you about DEMOCRACY, REAL democracy: the one that is INEXISTANT and the one we NEED today.

In 2005, during a public debate in France, I wrote a ten-page paper about what revolted me in the so-called « constitution » that was being proposed in the referendum, and I sent this document to my close acquaintances and I posted it on my personal website. And then, everything was turned upside down for me. This succinct argument in favour of the NO vote met an expectation and corrected a deficiency. And ordinary people sent this message to their contacts, everywhere in France and even in the world because they translated it into 5 or 6 languages…and thanks to Internet it has become a big event. On returning home from secondary school, after my courses, I opened my mailbox and there, a flood of e-mails began, every minute dozens of e-mails, all evening, all night. And in the following months, I tried to reply to all these people, either people who COUNTED for me or people who were saying BAD THINGS about me; I tried to be « EQUAL to the SITUATION ».

All the newspapers, radio stations, and television channels came by my house in order to understand this phenomenon, the meter on my website was going like a fan, up to 40,000 visits PER DAY(one hell of a review for a reading panel, I can tell you…), 12, 000 mails in 2 months ! Intense mails, warm mails, demanding ones too… And all of this emotion stretched a BOW within me (and continues to do so today).

I HAVE BEEN PROFOUNDLY CHANGED BY THE WAY OTHERS SEE ME: the grateful looks and the suspicious ones. My work has been nourished by THE IMPORTANCE THAT I ATTACH TO THE WAY PEOPLE LOOK AT ME. And I discovered recently that men have known for many years that it is important for the public interest : it’s called VERGOGNE it encourages virtue and it gives courage. For the Athenians, it was the foundation of the life of the City. Plato even considered that we should put to death the citizen who was « shameless » extremely dangerous for the City. And I believe that this is an essential concept even today.

---

So, after the referendum, I continued and I have been working like a madman for the past six years:

And here, in a few words, is the reason why I have taken so much trouble:

1) I am trying to understand the MAIN CAUSE OF SOCIAL INJUSTICE,

2) I have discovered the genial ideas upon which ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY was founded,

3) I have given back to certain important words their REAL MEANING,

4) And I am reflecting about the GOOD INSTITUTIONS that would durably protect us, ALL OF US, against the abuse of power.

AND I SHARE THAT with all of those who wish that we should PROGRESS TOGETHER in CONSTANT controversy. I am sometimes SLANDERED or RECUPERATED OBVIOUSLY but that’s not so important. In any case, I NEED MY OPPONENTS IN ORDER TO PROGRESS Consequently, I AM DOING MY BEST, I’m moving forward, I AM LOOKING.

And my method for searching is the Hippocratic method, perhaps the best idea in the world.)

This doctor used to say: LOOK FOR THE CAUSE OF THE CAUSES!

In other words, to treat an illness, to solve a problem, it is useless to attack the consequences, of course, but also useless to attack the various causes, given that everything has multiple causes:

THERE IS ALWAYS A DECISIVE CAUSE (not the only one but the one that determines all of the others). THIS IS THE ONE WE WANT.

---

So, of course I share the combat of my resistant friends (I have made a diagram to represent the tree of injustices and specialized areas of combat) but I have observed that the militants ARE ALL FIGHTING AGAINST THE CONSEQUENCES: I have observed that NONE IS CONSIDERING THE ROOT CAUSE. : for me, the question to be asked is « what makes all of these horrors POSSIBLE? (Environmental, economic, social…).

It is precisely this that we need to understand.

---

And I believe that what makes social injustice possible, IS THE POLITICAL POWERLESSNESS OF GOOD, NORMAL PEOPLE: IF THE PEOPLE HAD THE POWER TO RESIST, THEY WOULD DO SO VICTORIOUSLY..

But then one asks, where does this powerlessness of the people come from? (I am constantly looking for the cause of the cause).

It has not just fallen out of the sky, our powerlessness: it is PROGRAMMED, in a higher text …

An ESSENTIAL TEXT about which nobody could give a toss! And it is called the CONSTITUTION.

(Nobody could give a hoot, except the multinationals and the banks, take good note…)

It is in the constitution that elected members ARE NOT accountable,

It is in the constitution that they CANNOT BE dismissed,

It is in the constitution that we CANNOT freely choose our candidates,

It is in the constitution that the powers ARE NOT separated,

It is in the constitution that the people-initiated referendum is NOT provided for,

It is in the constitution that the money is NOT public,

Etc. etc.

But this cause itself (this bad constitution), has a PRIMARY cause: Who wrote this text???

How is it that everywhere in the world, at all times, ALL the constitutions program the powerlessness of the people? It is certainly not a conspiracy: not everywhere, not always, it’s not possible… No, this universal process has a primary and universal cause:

(pay attention) The way I see it is, all of the human beings of the world by laziness, by fear or by ignorance, GIVE UP ON WRITING THEIR CONSTITUTION THEMSELVES and EVERYONE ACCEPTS THAT IT IS THE political PROFESSIONALS (members of parliament, judges, ministers, party members …) WHO DRAW UP AND MODIFY THE CONSTITUTION !

---

But one must understand WHAT A CONSTITUTION IS, WHAT ITS PURPOSE IS, every citizen should know that:

We, « the people », need representatives, above us, having the power to produce and apply written law, which pacifies our society, by preventing the arbitrary domination of the strongest.

From the very beginning, we have known that this power is not only USEFUL but it is also DANGEROUS, ALL TYPES of power tend towards ABUSE, ALWAYS. (Montesquieu), it is like an implacable, physical law and the brilliant tool to PROTECT US from abuses of power, is the CONSTITUTION.

The Constitution is a text which serves to WEAKEN the powers that be. In order to do its job of protecting, it must WORRY the powers that be. CONSEQUENTLY THEY MUST FEAR IT!

But if that is the case, IF THE POWERS THAT BE SHOULD FEAR THE CONSTITUTION THEY MUST OBVIOUSLY NOT BE THE ONES TO DRAW IT UP!!!

And yet it is easy to understand and to predict that the political professionals when drawing up, themselves, the rules supposed to frighten them later, such people are in a situation of CONFLICT of INTEREST, they are at one and the same time judge and jury=> in this specific case, they are UNABLE to be impartial: they are obviously going to program THEIR power and OUR powerlessness.

And we cannot really blame them: NOBODY is strong enough to commit political hara-kiri, it’s normal, anybody would do the same thing=> IT IS UP TO US, AND US ONLY TO FORBID THEM FROM WRITING, because they will not give it up of their own accord! NEVER: the solution will not come from them but from us.

Here it is then, the mother of causes (upon which we should UNITE so as to become STRONG): it is not the role of men in power to write the rules of power we must put an end to our resignation on this point.

---

Well, the first decisive battle is to give back to IMPORTANT words, their REAL MEANING:

Today, before anything else, I AM NOT A « CITIZEN » (a citizen is AUTONOMOUS, he votes his own laws), I AM ONLY AN « ELECTOR », that’s to say a political infant, I AM "HETERONOMOUS": i.e. I am subject to the laws passed by others than myself.

My "parents" in politics, the elected members, do not want me to emancipate myself from them, they do not want me to grow up and to become autonomous: they refuse to let me vote myself for or against the laws to which I am submitted.

Let me remind you of the coup d’État of 4 February 2008, during which our so-called « representatives » imposed upon us, via parliamentary vote the anticonstitutional treaty that we had just expressly refused by referendum ! This political rape is extremely serious and yet we have absolutely NO WAY of resisting, even that.

They say that we are "incompetent"! They treat us like children!

BUT THAT IS WELL AND TRULY OUR FAULT, perhaps we are children to a certain extent (children believe in « Father Christmas », electors believe in « universal suffrage ») : WE ACCEPT to call « democracy » (demos cratos, the power to the people ) ITS ABSOLUTE OPPOSITE : the so-called modern « democracy » what is it? Well, it’s the only the right to 1) designate our MASTERS, 2) from among people we have NOT CHOSEN, 3) and without having any means of resisting a possible betrayal between two elections. 4) With, as well the RIGHT OF EXPRESSION —BUT WITHOUT ANY CONSTRAINING FORCE.—, 5) and that’s all.

The real name of this anti-democratic regime is « REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT» (at least allegedly representative)

In fact, we agree to call « Constitution » a text which is not one.. We need TO KNOW WHAT WE WANT: THE SIMPLE WORD constitution OR THE REAL PROTECTION that it should provide for?

So; to resist well, we must begin by a STRIKE AGAINST LYING WORDS such as "democracy", « universal suffrage", "citizen" et "constitution", which HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPOSITE MEANING by the POWER THIEVES.

---

And this ANTIDEMOCRATIC project was MADE ON PURPOSE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING!

SIEYÈS (one of the most influential thinkers of the French Revolution), said in 1789:

« Citizens who designate representatives abandon and must abandon making the laws themselves; they have no particular will to impose. If they dictated their will, France would no longer be that representative State ; it would be a democratic State. The people, I repeat, in a country that is not a democracy , (and France cannot be one), the people can only speak, can only act via their representatives». Abbé SIEYÈS, speech of 7 September 1789.

Well, I think that that is clear, isn’t it?

And this other quotation, even more explicit from VOLTAIRE:

« A well organized society is one in which a small number of people make a greater number of people work, is fed by them and governs them ». Voltaire a democrat? Pull the other one… Oligarch!

HISTORY has shown us in detail the SHAM and the PERMANENT RIGGING of REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT for over 200 years => I warmly recommend you to watch the videos of Henri Guillemin on the net.

And those people knew very well what they were doing, they knew very well that what they wanted was « election » not drawing lots:

ALL OF THE THINKERS OF THE WORLD BEFORE 1789, from Plato-Aristotle to Montesquieu-Rousseau, KNEW and wrote that

1) ELECTION IS ARISTOCRATIC BY NATURE, THUS OLIGARCHIC and that 2) THE ONLY DEMOCRATIC PROCEDURE IS THE DRAWING OF LOTS, accompanied by THOUSANDS OF CHECKS of the people that the luck of the draw has designated.

Read these two quotations, 2,000 years apart:

Aristotle: «Elections are aristocratic and not democratic: they introduce an element of deliberate choice of the selection of the best citizens, the aristoi, instead of government by the people as a whole».

Montesquieu: «Suffrage via lots is the nature of democracy; suffrage by choice is the nature of aristocracy.»

OK, this is not a hare-brained idea of old man Chouard… It is a question of DEFINITIONS, to be respected SO THAT WORDS MAY HAVE A MEANING, SO THAT THEY SHOULD KEEP THEIR « TRUE MEANING ». And it is like that THE WHOLE WORLD OVER.

---

I should like to refer to history and to facts. : WE HAVE TWO, QUITE LONG, HISTORICAL EXPERIENCES : democracy and thus the drawing of lots, Athens for over 200 years, 2,500 years ago, and representative government and thus the election, for over 200 years too, since 1789 => look at the RESULTS :

1) I draw your attention, Ladies and Gentlemen to the FACT that, for over 200 years, the drawing of lots ALWAYS gave power to the poorest, « the 99% » (look at the two centuries of democracy in Athens, there are no exceptions).

2) WHEREAS experience shows us that an ELECTION ALWAYS GIVES POWER TO THE RICHEST 1% (look at the last 200 years, there are no exceptions).

=> So my central question is: «HOW MUCH LONGER ARE THE POOR (the 99%) GOING TO PREFER ELECTION to DRAWING OF LOTS???» (against their most obvious interests).

Our preference for elections is incomprehensible. There are only MYTHS to explain it: the drawing of lots hasn’t been taught for 200 years at the school called « republican ». (everyday they drum it into us that « elections=democracy, democracy=elections…), which explains the intellectual difficulty we have in taking this procedure on board , the procedure that we need so badly (all over the world) to get out of the mess we are in: it takes TIME TO BE DISINTOXICATED.

The drawing of lots frightens you? To reassure you, I must warn you against a frequent MISUNDERSTANDING:

In a democracy, it is not the people who are chosen by lots who decide! Drawing lots serves PRECISELY to WEAKEN THE REPRESENTATIVES (broadly speaking, they are the people who prepare the laws and those who apply it : civil servants, police, judges…) => with the drawing of lots, we weaken these representatives SO THAT THEY REMAIN OUR SERVANTS AND NEVER BECOME OUR MASTERS => DRAWING LOTS IS THE GUARANTEE THAT THE PEOPLE WILL REMAIN SOVEREIGN.

I haven’t got time to develop this, but don’t dismiss too quickly the drawing of lots in politics: there are LOTS OF EXPERIMENTS ON EARTH WHICH ARE WORKING PERFECTLY: A case in point is BRITISH COLOMBIA (near Vancouver) which had its whole electoral code rewritten (complex and sizeable) by an assembly composed of people who had been designated by the drawing of lots, and the story they told the journalists, these simple citizens alarmed at first but reassured afterwards becoming competent through their work, and finally with tears in their eyes at the moment they submitted their text, proud as can be for having succeeded and obtaining 57% of the referendum. … All of the experiences of citizen juries chosen by drawing lots have revealed an undeniable competence of the ordinary citizen.

---

But let’s be careful: to defend this idea of drawing lots (for the Constituent assembly at least, and possibly representatives afterwards), we can only count on ourselves, normal people, at the base, those who DON’T WANT power.

At this point, I would like to share with you this wonderful thought by Alain (the great philosopher), who used to say:

« THE MOST VISIBLE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE JUST MAN IS NOT TO WANT AT ALL TO GOVERN OTHERS, BUT TO GOVERN ONLY HIMSELF. THAT DECIDES EVERYTHING. YOU MIGHT AS WELL SAY THAT THE WORST WILL GOVERN ».

In an electoral regime, which gives power to those who want it, Alain is right; the worst will govern.

But on the contrary, the drawing of lots can get us out of this trap by proposing power to all of those who don’t want it. (and who are often the best amongst us).

=> We must spread the word, amongst us, amongst « normal » people and we must all become « trainers of trainers » so that we can QUICKLY become billions of « white cells » (or « well-meaning viruses ») disseminating a simple and powerful idea, an idea which aims precisely (with all of our united forces) at the Achilles’ heel of the oligarchy: WE DEMAND THE HONESTY OF THE CONSTITUENT PROCESS BY REPLACING ELECTION BY A DRAWING OF LOTS AND THE FORMING OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY BY THIS MEANS

---

15 minutes, it’s too short, I haven’t been able to show you the link (essential !) between MONEY and the constitution (indissociable).

I don’t have time here to say more: you must go and look for the rest on the web and in books WORK. Have a look at le-message.org for example.

Come and join us on the net: we are currently DEMONSTRATING THAT WE NEED, AND THAT WE ARE CAPABLE, THAT WE WANT TO WRITE OUR OWN CONSTITUTION OURSELVES, OUR SOCIAL CONTRACT.

This idea that I am building with you, IT WILL WORK FOR EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD

And if there are REALLY LOTS OF US, it will be sufficient to WANT IT for that to arrive WITHOUT VIOLENCE.

Thank you.

Étienne Chouard.

---

http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/Europe/Etienne_Chouard_2012_No-democracy-without-Sortition.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN5tdMSXWV8

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF810C7CF34155740

http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/Europe/tirage_au_sort.php

http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/Europe/traductions

---

What a job!

Étienne.