> [!NOTE] : The Case for Democracy > `Author:` David Van Reybrouck `Availability:` **Against Elections: The Case for Democracy — David Van Reybrouck** David Van Reybrouck’s _Against Elections: The Case for Democracy_ examines what he identifies as a contemporary crisis of democratic legitimacy in Western societies. The book is written against a backdrop of widespread political instability and declining public trust in elected institutions, including populist movements in the United States, constrained governance in Europe due to institutions such as the [[The International Monetary Fund|IMF]] and the World Bank, the failure of democratic transitions following the Arab Spring, and political fragmentation in the United Kingdom following the Brexit referendum. Van Reybrouck argues that modern democracies face a paradox: public interest in politics has increased, while confidence in democratic institutions has declined. He characterises this condition as “**Democratic Fatigue Syndrome**”, suggesting that many societies continue to participate in democratic rituals without believing in their effectiveness. Central to his argument is the claim that democracy has been mistakenly equated with elections, and that this conflation is historically inaccurate and politically damaging. The book is structured around a medical metaphor, with chapters titled _Diagnosis_, _Pathogenesis_, and _Remedies_. In the diagnostic section, Van Reybrouck contends that elections, once a progressive innovation, now generate systemic problems. He compares elections to “the fossil fuel of politics”: historically beneficial, but increasingly responsible for instability, short-termism, and disengagement. According to this view, electoral competition encourages empty promises, polarisation, and governance driven by campaign cycles rather than the common good. As an alternative, Van Reybrouck proposes the use of [[Sortition]], a system in which citizens are randomly selected by lottery to participate directly in decision-making. He draws on historical precedents from ancient Athens and Renaissance-era Venice and Florence, where sortition was used alongside or instead of elections. In this model, randomly selected citizens are given time, resources, and expert input to deliberate on specific issues as representatives of the population as a whole. Van Reybrouck argues that sortition could address persistent problems of representation by ensuring proportional inclusion across gender, ethnicity, age, and social class. He also suggests it could reduce corruption, diminish the influence of money and media spectacle, and encourage decision-making oriented towards long-term collective interests rather than electoral advantage. A contemporary analogy is drawn with jury service, where randomly selected citizens are entrusted with making serious legal decisions after hearing evidence and expert testimony. The book acknowledges that forms of sortition already operate successfully within judicial systems, but extends the argument to legislative and policy-making contexts. Van Reybrouck presents this as a corrective to what he sees as the limitations of electoral democracy in complex, technologically advanced societies. Critics of the proposal raise concerns about the application of sortition to highly complex or technical areas of governance, such as economic policy or national defence. They also note that elected officials currently serve as identifiable figures of accountability, absorbing public dissatisfaction when policies fail. In a system based on sortition, mechanisms for registering responsibility and political failure are less clear, since randomly selected citizens cannot be “voted out”. While _Against Elections_ advocates a significant rethinking of democratic practice, it also leaves open the question of whether sortition should replace elections entirely or operate alongside them in limited contexts. The book ultimately contributes to ongoing debates about democratic reform by challenging the assumption that elections are synonymous with democracy itself. --- Democracy may be failing but this optimistic book is sadly not the answer These are strange times indeed for democrats. In America, there is a very real prospect that Donald Trump, a sometime reality TV show star and bizarrely bouffanted businessman, could become the next president of the United States. Even his supporters don’t believe he knows much about politics – that’s his main attraction. In Europe elected governments struggle to realise the manifesto promises that brought them to power because they are in hock to non-elected bodies like the [[The International Monetary Fund|IMF]] and the World Bank. In North Africa and the Middle East the democratic promise of the Arab spring has turned into a _Game of Thrones_-style winter. And here in the UK, both leading parties are riven by divisions, their leaders either fallen or set to fall, and the result of a referendum that was supposed to give the people the power over their destiny has resulted in a constitutional and economic crisis of identity. > [[Sortition]] operates in the jury system. Why not extend the practice right across the governmental realm? Two weekends ago my 16-year-old daughter organised a protest in Parliament Square arguing that her cohort of 16- and 17-year-olds were denied their say in their European future – one that their counterparts in Scotland enjoyed in the referendum to decide on leaving or remaining in the UK. And yet the 18- to 24-year-olds who did vote on 23 June boasted the lowest turnout of any age group, though not nearly as low as originally thought. If elections are the answer, one might reasonably ask, what the hell was the question? This is the issue that the Belgian writer [David Van Reybrouck](http://www.davidvanreybrouck.be/) grapples with in his thoughtful and provocative new book, _Against Elections: The Case for Democracy_. At first glance that title might seem a little contradictory. Surely the very basis of democracy is elections? But his argument is that it’s the very futility of elections, a theatre of empty or misguided promise, that is undermining belief in the democratic process. He suggests that we are living through a dangerous period in which there is a growing interest in politics but a declining faith. As he writes: “Democratic Fatigue Syndrome is a disorder that has not yet been fully described but from which countless western societies are nonetheless unmistakably suffering.” Having alighted on a metaphor of illness, Van Reybrouck sees it through with three long chapters under the headings Diagnosis, Pathogenesis and Remedies. He mounts a convincing case that we have wrongly conflated democracy with elections, and are in fact simply maintaining an outmoded system in a technological era that calls out for, and can provide, much more informed participation. Why elections are bad for democracy He concludes in his diagnosis that “Elections are the fossil fuel of politics. Whereas once they gave democracy a huge boost, much like the boost oil gave the economy, it now turns out they cause colossal problems of their own.” Van Reybrouck’s remedy is not new, but a very old one: what’s called sortition. Sortition was the system that operated in ancient Athens and in the Renaissance states of Venice and Florence. The idea is that a small number of the public are randomly selected by lottery and are then empowered to study a given issue as representatives of the population at large. Each area of legislation or debate could be covered by different randomly selected representatives. In this way all issues of identity and representation are theoretically dealt with – women and sexual and ethnic minorities and different age groups will all be accurately represented – and, argues Van Reybrouck, corruption and election fever are reduced, while attention to the common good is increased. Of course a form of sortition already operates quite effectively in the jury system. We entrust 12 random members of the public to reach an informed decision about the most heinous and far-reaching crimes. So why not extend that practice right across the political and governmental realm? Here, though, Van Reybrouck’s thesis begins to look a little optimistic or idealistic. Juries work well when the evidence is fairly straightforward, or at least not demanding of expertise, but their record in complex high finance fraud, for example, leaves a lot to be desired. And there is also a great deal of public discontent – undoubtedly whipped up by the media – when the seemingly guilty walk free. Transpose such problems to the political arena when, say, a sortition of the public recommends an expensive transport system that doesn’t work out or cuts a defence system that is later needed, and where and how is that frustration registered? You can’t vote out the public. One job that elected politicians fulfil is as democratic punchbags. It’s not edifying or necessarily productive, but it may be essential. Perhaps sortition or partial sortition could be applied in very specific cases. But we also need to look at reviving elections and renewing our belief in them. They remain a vital part of the democratic process. Not its only part, to be sure, but they are an all too rare example of mass engagement. Let’s not vote them out just yet. _Against Elections is published by the Bodley Head (£9.99)._ [_Click here to buy it for £6.49_](https://bookshop.theguardian.com/against-elections.html?utm_source=editoriallink&utm_medium=merch&utm_campaign=article) - This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. ## Summary ## Key Takeaways ## Quotes - ## Notes > [!info] > ![[Against Elections.jpeg]] ## Highlights `Concepts:` `Knowledge Base:`