Le tirage au sort est-il compatible avec l’élection ?

Abstract

-De nombreux travaux se sont récemment penchés sur les bénéfices d'une réintroduction du tirage au sort en politique, le plus souvent envisagé comme complément plutôt que comme alternative aux élections. Cet article vise deux objectifs. Premièrement, mettre en évidence les propriétés et vertus de ces deux modes de sélection qui les rendent a priori complémentaires plutôt que rivaux. Deuxièmement, distinguer les usages du tirage au sort qui tirent le mieux profit de cette complémentarité et ceux qui sont susceptibles de poser des problèmes de compatibilité, voire d'engendrer des dynamiques de dé-légitimation réciproque. ABSTRACT-A great deal of work has enquired into the benefits that could result from a more frequent use of random selection in politics. Most proposals see sortition as complementary to elections rather than as a substitute. This article aims first at highlighting the properties and virtues that make these selection mechanisms appear as complementary rather than rival. Secondly, it makes a distinction between some uses of sortition able to take advantage of this complementarity, and others more likely to generate issues of compatibility and possibly mutual delegitimation dynamics. 1 Cet article a beaucoup bénéficié des commentaires et remarques de

More competent thus more legitimate? MPs’ discourses on deliberative mini-publics

“…The legitimacy of elected representatives lies on accountability (Urbinati and Warren 2008) and on delegation (by taking decisions in the best interest of the represented). Moreover, the voting mechanism ensures that the most competent candidates (in terms of education, internal efficacy, oral proficiency) are chosen (Vandamme 2018), since representative democracy is based on the concept of a hierarchy of competence between the represented and the representatives (Manin 1997). The time spent in politics by professional politicians, the acquisition of specific skills, or a specific professional background, has led to the professionalization of politics (Boelaert et al 2017).…”

“…Sortition relies on descriptive representativeness and on the likeliness between the representatives and the represented. It avoids the risk of a self-selection bias, provides equal opportunity for each citizen to participate and generates diversity among decision makers (Vandamme 2018). It is also supposed to foster deliberation, openness to other people's arguments (as members of deliberative mini-publics do not defend a political program and are not bounded by party discipline) and the ability to take long-term consequences of political actions into consideration (Vandamme 2018).…”

“…It avoids the risk of a self-selection bias, provides equal opportunity for each citizen to participate and generates diversity among decision makers (Vandamme 2018). It is also supposed to foster deliberation, openness to other people's arguments (as members of deliberative mini-publics do not defend a political program and are not bounded by party discipline) and the ability to take long-term consequences of political actions into consideration (Vandamme 2018). Unlike instruments such as direct democracy or elections, which allow everyone to take part in the process, DMPs are based on the participation of a small number of citizens, with an equal chance of being selected.…”

“…The legitimacy and the advantages of both modes of selection (election and sortition) may be complementary, specifically if the prerogative of citizens selected through sortition remains consultative (Vandamme 2018). Moreover, in a context of distrust of elected politicians, the increasing complexity of policy issues, and the demands for citizen participation, MPs could accept DMPs, and acknowledge the advantages of sortition and deliberation.…”

“…This confirms previous results opposing MPs who see themselves as standing for the common good, as opposed to ordinary citizens who are blinded by their individual interests (Jacquet et al 2015, 186). Theoretical discussions on deliberative minipublics argue precisely the contrary: MPs tend to focus on short-term interests and re-election whereas citizens are more likely to take long-term considerations into account (Vandamme 2018). For MP 56 (MR, Federal Parliament) the citizen "lives in the present, he's into instant gratification".…”