The dream apartment view for any student living in Paris.
On Wednesday, December 1, 2021, Demos21, a year-long series of lectures, roundtables and workshops organized by 勛圖tvs Center for Critical Democracy Studies (CCDS), hosted its sixth event of the academic year. Guest speaker Professor Annabelle Lever from Sciences Po Paris led a discussion on her forthcoming paper Democracy in Selection,whichquerieswhether lotteries, rather than elections,would be a more democratic way of selecting individuals for political power.The hybridevent, which formed part of the Contemporary European Democratic Theory section of Demos21,saw audience members attend both in person in CCDSs conference hall in the Quai dOrsay Learning Commons and online.
Dr. Levers position isthat lotteries are,in fact,no more intrinsically democratic than elections. She argued lotterieshavea checkered past and set forth aconception of equality that is purely distributive andtoo individualistic. While it is true that in electoral politicsthecriteria of competence are skewed in favor of those who already enjoy a certain amount of power,it is also the case thatlottery systems offer an imperfect alternative. Leversworkengageswith thinkers such as Iris Marion Young and Anne Phillips.
The case for lotteriesrelieson justifications that privilege equality of opportunity, rather than equality of outcome. Itdoes not engage with compelling questionssuch aswhether selected individuals would have thecapacity and desire to serve,or what would bethe consequences of such service. While inherently impartial, lottery systems may be ill-equipped to address structural problems that require commitments to equality that stretch beyondthe realm ofindividual opportunity.
Lever also likened the flaws in the lottery system to those found within both the French republican tradition and American liberal value systems, as represented by the concept of colorblindness. In essence,such approaches neglectany special duties a society might have to take care of those who are in need, beyond that which is offered to anyone. Finally, she notedthatlottery systems offer even less accountability than electoral systemswhen it comes to ensuringselected participants make and keep commitments to others within society.
Ultimately, she argued that her paperprovideda variety of critiques at a time when lotteries are beingproposedas straightforward improvements upon electoral systems.After her presentation,Dr. Lever addressed questionsfrom the audiencearound the supposed legitimacy of lotteries and the potential centralization of fringe positions.