that politicians are more interested in ruling for themselves, than“ for the people.” Political parties understandably seek to prove this to be false. It is Lincoln’ s second phrase,“ rule by the people”, which offers us the best chance of diverting public outrage into improving our political system. To put it bluntly, we should inject‘ the people’ directly into Parliament, in the form of Citizen Senators, selected at random as with jury selection.
' Electing the Lords by proportional representation using a party list system would actually entrench the worst aspects of political cronyism '
There has been some limited interest in the role of citizens’ juries in our democratic life, with Patricia Hewitt, Guy Lodge of the IPPR, and Matthew Taylor of the RSA, having explored their use in improving policy-formulation and public engagement. Anthony Barnett and Peter Carty wrote the book‘ The Athenian Option: Radical Reform For The House Of Lords’. Even David Cameron’ s erstwhile politics tutor at Oxford, Vernon Bogdanor, has championed the election of councillors by lot( although he defends the House of Lords as currently configured).
Citizen Senators have excellent antecedents, as explained by Daniel Lightman, when corresponding with the author in the letters page of The Times in 2009:“ In Ancient Athens, the day-to-day business of government was entrusted to the Council of Five Hundred, which was chosen annually out of the whole citizen body by lot. The only qualifications were that one had to be aged over 30 and of good standing. The Athenians were not alone in recognising the value of using the lot to select a representative group of citizens. The Talmud records that Moses used lots to choose the 70 elders of the Children of Israel and the 22,000 designated first-born.“ The ancients knew,” observed the renowned classical scholar Jowett,“ that election by lot was the most democratic of all modes of appointment.”
Citizen Senators
How would our system of Citizen Senators operate? The renamed Senate would be composed half of Citizen Senators, and half of Expert Senators, drawn from across the broad panoply of British life( more about this later). Citizen Senators would be selected at random as are prospective jurors at present. They would serve for one year and be paid compensation for lost earnings. Initially, they would have the right to decline, in order to avoid having to attempt to force people to serve who are wholly opposed to this. However, over time, as the reforms bedded in and citizens saw‘ ordinary’ people excelling in service, the system would become compulsory, with a mechanism for people to be excused on certain grounds( as with juries). All Citizen Senators would receive specialised training in Parliamentary procedure and politics, perhaps given by the Institute for Government or similar.
' The rallying cry coined by Abraham Lincoln-“ rule of the people, by the people, for the people” – elevates the broad idea to a challenging belief and call to action '
This system would share the great strength of the jury‘ selection’ process of being truly representative of ordinary people. It would also apply those other fundamental responsibilities placed on jurors: to act in the public interest and deliberate only on the evidence before them. This sense of‘ civic duty’ could be extended to a requirement for Citizen Senators to vote on grounds of conscience alone. Clearly many would have strong party-political opinions, which would influence their judgment, but they would be required to renounce party membership for their term
revolutionise. it 31