FAQs
Choose the tab with the questions in French
Yes, of course! We have listed 5 recent examples of coin tossing in politics, including in Ireland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Canada and Australia.
But these are just a few emblematic examples among others (China, United States, etc.)!
Before making a decision on a subject, the people selected will meet for several days to learn, discuss, debate and meet experts on the subject. During a referendum, few people take the time to delve sufficiently into the subject (and it would be unrealistic to expect such work from the whole population). Moreover, they can only express themselves in a binary way "for" or "against" and not construct a proposition.
The draw therefore makes it possible to obtain the reasoned opinion of a representative sample of the population, rather than obtaining a vague intuition from the entire population.
The drawing of lots is undoubtedly not impervious to populism but it can limit the emergence of simplistic solutions/proposals to complex problems, in particular thanks to information, debate, diversity, turnover within of the assembly and above all the absence of demagogue leaders. To have a real impact, it is in the interest of the assembly to make feasible proposals. Unlike people who must be elected to have political power, those drawn by lot have no interest in making unrealistic proposals since they are not aiming to be re-elected. Of course, the assembly must be well informed of the budgetary constraints and consequences of its decisions. Just as current parliamentarians have access to advisers and information, the assembly will also have the means to inform itself and deepen its knowledge of the issues.
This is a sensitive issue. It is necessary to be able to inform the assembly without the experts taking too much power, guiding the decisions or delivering information not based on verifiable facts. We imagined several safeguards. (more info on method).
Among other things, it is possible to limit the influence of the experts by including several different experts, by precisely defining the question to which the experts must answer and by limiting the speaking time of each .e. This encourages the experts to limit themselves to facts, and there is less room for a more “political” position that could influence the assembly too much. Of course, the meeting itself may request additional expertise when it deems it necessary.
The draw is not a solution against lobbying, but it can limit it. At first glance one might think that having newcomers to politics frequently (as will be the case with the coin toss) would open more space for lobbies, but in reality we think it would reduce the power of these lobbies. Indeed, lobbying requires a relationship of trust between lobbyists and those in power: each must be convinced that the other will perform their part of the “contract”. This kind of relationship of trust takes time to build, and that is why it is more interesting for a lobbyist to invest in such a relationship with a career politician who will have political influence for 30 years. that vis-à-vis a hundred people chosen at random and renewed each year.
We want to institutionalize the drawing of lots in Brussels. The drawing of lots is not a form of direct democracy in the exact sense of the term, since it is always a fraction of the population that makes the decisions. However, we are convinced that an assembly of people drawn by lot will be more representative of the population of Brussels than our current Parliament. It will be an arena for debate and the formulation of ideas, open to all, and detached from regular electoralism. It is complicated to apply direct democracy on the scale of Brussels, but the drawing of lots is complementary to direct democracy systems on a smaller scale. More info on our basic statutes in our founding text.
If we operate on a voluntary basis, there will systematically be an overrepresentation of certain groups (e.g. men, academics, etc.). The drawing of lots makes it possible to select a truly representative sample of the population. Of course, participation will indeed be voluntary in the sense that the people drawn will have the right to refuse to participate. There will therefore still be a certain “self-selection bias” (some social categories being more likely to agree to participate than others). This is why we will also apply quotas that will allow us to ensure representation of gender, education levels and age categories. We can therefore expect to obtain greater diversity through lottery and quotas than on a purely voluntary basis.
The assembly of people drawn by lot can be an effective complement to the current political system. One of the obstacles to the creation of laws is the electoral system which pushes the parties into a logic of opposition rather than a search for consensus. People drawn for a short time and not having to worry about re-election will probably be more motivated to find a compromise than to stick to ideological positions.
The complexity of current governments and parties discourages the people of Brussels from taking an interest in politics. We want to create a place and offer time to citizens so that they can really participate in politics. We believe that the assembly of people drawn by lot can be an effective complement to the current political system.
Direct bribery is already illegal and we believe the coin toss adds a structure of control to our democracy. We are going to create a structure that will allow citizens to deepen their understanding and mastery of Brussels politics and perhaps become more vigilant towards those who govern us.Indirect bribery, or lobbying, may still be present in a drawn meeting, but it may be limited. Indeed, lobbying requires a relationship of trust between lobbyists and those in power: each must be convinced that the other will perform their part of the “contract”. This kind of trusting relationship takes time to build. Since the people selected will only be in power for one year, the risk of lobbying is rather limited.
In the short term, no: participation in the meeting drawn by lot that we will create in September 2019 will be limited to 10 days spread over a year (always on Saturdays). To ensure the diversity of the meeting and allow the people drawn by lot to sit in the meeting, the participants will be paid and childcare can be organized.
In the long term it may be useful for the assembly to become a full-time job for the drawees, but then it will be important to think carefully about the interaction with a pre-existing occupation.
In the long term, we want the assembly to have legislative power. This requires a change in the Constitution. For the moment, thanks to the fact that we plan to have a parliamentarian, we will ensure that the decisions of the assembly are defended in the Brussels Parliament. They will have to be debated and voted on. Nothing today prevents a party from choosing to relay the choices of the assembly, thus demonstrating its democratic concerns.
The elected official will have the task of defending the proposals made in the assembly. In order not to take a political position, he/she must therefore regularly abstain from voting on subjects not discussed in the assembly. This is necessary to ensure the legitimacy of the elected representative to defend the proposals of the assembly. Although the chosen one will necessarily have their own opinions, their conviction about the value of the draw will prevent them from expressing them. This is important for the relationship of trust that will have to be created between the assembly and the elected official.
There may be some in the assembly, as there may be in the current Parliament, but no single person can take power in the assembly. In addition, the organization of debates in small groups and in the presence of professional moderators will force openness to debate, meeting, reflection and the positioning of each. Finally, previous experiences of drawing lots (as well as sitting juries) show that participants feel invested with a mission and act in a more responsible way, focused on the collective interest, when they are effectively gives a form of power.
In our view, a democracy only works when citizens are sufficiently politicized. This means that they are (1) aware of the current issues and the various possible solutions; (2) able and willing to form an opinion; (3) having a sense of legitimacy to make political decisions. By creating an assembly of people drawn by lot, we hope to contribute to a politicization of the inhabitants of Brussels who too often feel neglected by politics and detached from the city.
Yes, in two ways. Firstly, the people drawn will have access to a space (geographical, financial and temporal) and the recognition necessary to deepen their knowledge of the legislation in force in Brussels. This will contribute to their politicization. Secondly, we hope that the possibility of being drawn in Brussels stimulates a desire to stay informed and involved in Brussels politics. Imagine that everyone in Brussels, from an early age, hears that one day he or she could be drawn by lot and make decisions.
An operation is a more neutral act than taking a political decision. A medical decision is governed by biological and physical laws, which a surgeon will not have studied for several years. For the governance of our society, there are no natural laws. So there is no absolute truth. All laws were created by citizens, and that is why they are political: they are contestable, often ideological and never neutral.
Of course, you have to be informed before making a decision. This is why experts will have the opportunity to present their point of view within the assembly, as is the case in Parliament for the moment. It doesn't change the fact that politicians may have experience in politics that the postman doesn't have, but he/she doesn't have greater access to the truth. This is the foundation of our democracy, which thus opposes technocratic logic. This principle is as valid in an election system as in a random draw system. With the drawing of lots, we give more substance to this democratic ideal.
Democracy is giving power to the people. However, the exercise of power takes a lot of time, and in our current society, it is difficult to imagine that the whole population participates fully and permanently. Indirect democracy, where a small group of people are temporarily granted power, is therefore more feasible than direct democracy.
Drawing lots and elections are two ways to select this group of representatives who each have their advantages and could live together.
Elections have the advantage of giving everyone a vote, but their influence is very limited.
The draw does not give everyone the same power at the same time, but gives everyone the same chance to come to power. Rotation allows many more people to participate in decision-making than the current system. In addition, drawing lots creates more diverse assemblies, which are therefore more representative of the population.
No, we want to enrich them. Our current system works thanks to a multitude of institutions. This includes political parties, citizen movements, social partners, independent media, independent justice, etc. We want to enrich this system with an assembly of Brussels residents drawn by lot in order to move towards true democracy. We are going to create an assembly that will last over time, which will allow the individuals present to get used to participating in political decisions and which will be a tool for popular education as well as a lever to create a real counter-power. to today's politicians.
The opinions of the dominant are dominant (hegemonic) as long as they are the only opinions heard. And this is often the case in our current system. However, in our recent history there have been several movements that have succeeded in imposing opinions that were not those of the dominant people at that time. Evidence in Belgium now, such as paid holidays, freedom of opinion, voting for all,... were not 100 years ago. By creating an assembly of people drawn by lot, we hope to give time and space for development, as well as attention and recognition, to the multiple opinions which exist within the population of Brussels but which are not represented (or too little expressed) by our current political class. Experiences, such as the G1000, demonstrate that new ideas, creative and innovative, can appear within these kinds of assemblies.
Many such experiments have taken place. In general, the final decision rests with the politicians and we often have the feeling that the opinions collected are only taken into account when they go in the direction desired by the politicians. In this sense, consultations often remain an unhelpful and frustrating exercise for participants