The electoral defeat of Victor Orban and the indescribable behavior of Trump lead to the conclusion that the political potential of populist right wingers is limited and a better theoretical basis is required for the “Freedom movement”.
Greece experimented with a bicameral parliamentary system but finally opted for a unicameral alternative. The demands of universal suffrage can be satisfied if only one of the two (or more?) parliamentary chambers is based on universal suffrage but the possibility of this is obviously dependent on the institution of at least two parliamentary chambers.
There are many disadvantages to universal suffrage and historically it has not applied everywhere in the parliamentary system. Experience during the COVID “pandemic” suggests that most people want to follow the dictates of what they perceive as “authority” and in many cases also to target their fellow-citizens who are perceived (by “authority”) to be defying authority. This applies as much to the Left as to the Right, because the Right want the Left to be “opposition” and the Left want to be seen as “relevant players” and not as conspiracy theorists or something unacceptable like that.
Ιt should not be taboo to see all these as simple matters of fact. The desideratum is to find ways of minimizing their negative consequences. Would providing an alternative to voting based on universal suffrage help towards achieving such an objective? Sortition (choosing politicians by means of a lottery) had a part to play in the ancient Athenian democracy and should be included among techniques to be given rational consideration. The most obvious relevant problem would be that it could result in the elevation of inappropriate people. This could be countered by having a court whose task would be to identify not who would be suitable to play a part in public life but who would NOT be suitable. Citizens who feel that they are called upon to be public figures (or to propose somebody else for such a role) should be encouraged to state this publicly and then the court (with assistance from input from the general public) should decide who is to be excluded.
Experience suggests that in any case the population is better at deciding what they DON’T want than they are at making useful constructive proposals. The selection of the politicians would be made by sortition from among the eligible candidates, who would then comprise a second parliamentary chamber. The parliamentarians in this chamber would speak as individuals, would be off-limits to journalists and other would-be intermediaries and would communicate directly with the public and with their colleagues. There would continue to be the politics and the politicians we know now but they would be competing for a mandate with the second chamber. Which chamber would make decisions and which would be advisory would be determined by the outcome of a referendum to be held every five years or other agreed period and there would be no other referenda.
The political base of the second chamber would be people who have indicated that they do not wish to vote for the politicians and candidates in the first chamber and they would not be allowed to do so unless they had made a decision to join or rejoin the electorate for the first chamber. This idea was first discussed among people of our acquaintance during the COVID lockdowns by participants in the World Freedom Alliance and is on record, with further elaboration, at https://www.halva.proboards.com/post/2531
Varoufakis has said that the ideal would be for power to be in the hands of people who “don’t want power”. But he has not elaborated on how such an idea might be achievable, so that it remains something like idle chat, however interesting as an insight.
https://www.halva.proboards.com/post/2531