Elections loom large in our everyday understanding of democracy. Yet we also acknowledge that our familiar electoral apparatus is questionable from a democratic point of view. Very few citizens have access to the kinds of resources that could enable them to stand for election; consequently, political candidates (thus officeholders) tend to come from elite social backgrounds. Moreover, elections involve campaigns, and campaigns almost always deploy various persuasion techniques, many of which are deceptive, manipulative, and downright toxic. Once elected, officials begin seeking re-election, which means that they must devote a great deal of attention to potential donors to their re-election campaigns. And on it goes. If by “democracy” one means “rule by the people,” it’s difficult to see how contemporary electoral practices empower us.
Notably, our fixation with elections as the sine qua non of democracy is relatively recent. Aristotle claimed that elections are fundamentally oligarchic, and that lotteries were a truly democratic way of filling public offices. In Lottocracy: Democracy without Elections (Oxford University Press, 2024), Alex Guerrero proposes a non-electoral version of democracy that relies on “single issue legislatures” composed of citizens chosen by lot.
Alexander Guerrero, "Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections" (Oxford UP, 2024) | In Conversation: An OUP Podcast - Listen or read transcript on Metacast
