Exiting the lockdown, with the help of chance

Cesare Maccari, Cicero Denounces Catiline, 1888


Exiting the lockdown, with the help of chance

The random selection of citizens to participate in public life is becoming a standard and reliable practice in representative democracies


By Luis Feduchi


It is not often that an entire society, on a global scale no less, faces decisions on a matter with which we have little or no previous experience. How to exit the Covid-19 confinement measures adopted in many countries is just such a dilemma. Approaches to achieving this are debatable, vary from country to country, and should perhaps differentiate even within the same territory.

Several countries have already established advisory bodies for this purpose. While the Italian government has decided to set up a task force headed by the former CEO of one of the world’s five largest mobile phone companies, indicating that private sector involvement can be decisive, the US president has sought loyalty over professionalism; he even contemplated giving his daughter Ivanka a key role in a task force.

This begs the question: If we consider randomness to have value in assuring that data is reliable, should we not also resort to it – in, say, a random survey of an affected society – as a means to mediate and deliberate such a decision that is so monumental and, as it has been felicitously put, “unexperimented.“

* * *

Not long ago, Ireland’s government debated two issues of great social relevance: the legalizations of abortion and gay marriage. In doing so, Dublin resorted to the same method Iceland used in 2011 to adopt a new constitution: it formed an advisory body comprising of citizens selected at random.

This practice, brilliantly brought to today’s discussion in David Van Reybrouck’s Against Elections, and known as sortition is neither new nor “unexperimented.” It was the method used in ancient Greece to select holders of public office, as elections similar to those we hold today were believed to lead to oligarchy. A segment of today’s political thinkers aspires to have this method re-established to fill legislative bodies with citizens selected by lot, yet it is already being employed in a few Western democracies as a method of forming advisory councils. In Ireland, the influence of the randomly chosen 66 citizens of a 99-member body on the discussion and ultimate findings enabled progress that for decades had eluded experts, politicians and legions of liberal and conservative lobbies. It is a cogent example of real democracy rescuing epistocracy, or the rule of experts.

Those resistant to the idea of sortition as a substitute for election are often surprised when it is made clear to them that the use of random selection is a standard and reliable practice in many representative democracies – most notably in judicial systems comprising juries of one’s peers and in electoral polling stations in countries such as Spain.

* * *

Let us now return to the Covid-19 crisis, where it is uncontroversial that that randomness plays a key role in testing and in using data to formulate an informed epidemiological response. Spain’s government expects a sero-epidemiological assay of 30,000 randomly chosen households to provide more relevant data than the symptomatology of the more than 300,000 cases registered there so far. Lockdown has proven to be a powerful tool in curbing the exponential trend of viral contagion and saving health care systems from catastrophe. The loosening of existing lockdown measures while there is still no vaccine is bound to create upturns and downturns in the daily number of new cases moving forward. In fact, these are the fluctuations that will determine whether the decisions to loosen lockdowns are appropriate.

This conundrum is not dissimilar to the triage calculations faced by doctors during the crisis, the difference being that such decisions fall now in the realm of biopolitics. In our current dilemma of loosening lockdown restrictions, the risk faced is not that of the surging infection of many individuals by an unknown virus – we know the virus by now, so future outcomes will largely be the result of decisions made in these committees of experts to advise the governments that shoulder ultimate responsibility.

Given this situation, what should take precedence: the further reduction in the number of newly infected and deceased, or the rebound of the economy? If the former, then how much of a reduction? Until the health system returns to normal? And does normal include the bandwidth to train the contact-tracing teams and execute the necessary contagion tracking that could not recently be carried out due to overwhelmed health and governmental systems?

But let’s focus on the original question at hand: Who should make these decisions? During the unexpected outbreak phase, many governments turned to scientific and public-health experts who almost exclusively advocated for lockdown. But the crisis is now in a new phase, and if there are no experts, who should deliver advice? Are corporate experts or close kin well-suited for this task? While assembling technocrats in a committee of experts may sound appropriate, how can we know this group could assess the interests of the wide array of individuals and communities with a stake in what is ultimately a decision about lives and livelihoods?

* * *

If we believe that a random sampling of thousands of families distributed throughout a territory provides a true picture of the penetration of the virus in society, why not use a similar sampling of citizens to consult and to discuss how and according to which variables a deconfinement strategy should be configured? Are we sure that they will have nothing to contribute to the group of governmental experts already in place?

If, as is often claimed, the goal is to reach a broad consensus, and while experience is scant yet trust in society is great, this would seem to be a good occasion to incorporate a reliable representation of actual society into that committee of experts.

It would be an advisory body that, as in the aforementioned cases in Iceland and Ireland, supervises measures and supports decision-making, along with experts, legislators and members of the executive branch. It would be a committee capable of giving its opinion on the suitability or dignity of the concessions that citizens will ultimately have to make, not only in terms of the means necessary to live but in the face of the contingency of fatality, not only in the face of economic figures but also in society’s and individuals’ physical and mental health beyond the pandemic. And it goes without saying that this committee would be at least somewhat less subject to lobbies and corporate groups of various kinds, and to be less confined by the calculations often made by politicians to safeguard their careers.

Random selection would ultimately seem preferable to the method of incorporating technocrats, retired CEOs, family members, or confidants of the president to give weight and voice to factors such as what defines an essential worker and what is the right balance between risk and reward. Various sectors and workers are affected unequally – a farm laborer alongside a computer programmer who can work from home, a single parent of three alongside a dependent-less young professional. There’s more at stake than just the GDP and unemployment rates.

A United Nations consultant on this matter, with whom I have contrasted various data, highlighted an additional advantage of the sortition method. In the event that the result was as positive as those in Ireland and Iceland, the individuals who would deserve credit would not be the politicians, but rather the randomly selected committee members: the people.


Luis Feduchi is a practicing architect and academic.
16.05.2020 — Rosa Mercedes / 02

The Reconstruction of Ukraine. Ruination / Representation / Solidarity, online symposium, September 9-11, 2022. “The Reconstruction of Ukraine: Ruination / Representation / Solidarity” devotes particular attention to cities, architecture, art, culture and psychological trauma – but the scope of the conversations it aims to start is broader. In due course, the discussions held during the symposium may coalesce into myriad projects, initiatives and experiments undertaken by government institutions, municipalities, educational and cultural bodies and other more interstitial actors. The ambition of this symposium is to establish a platform for dialogue, facilitating communication, collaboration and constructive argument between diverse actors and initiatives.

George Edwards (Zetkin Collective) on war, nationalism and the „anti-climate lobby“ (via Arts of the Working Class): „The latest prognosis of this particular war was spelt out in a flurry of reports from the IPCC; the most recent, described as ‚an atlas of human suffering‘ by the chief of the UN, demanded ‚rapid, deep and immediate‘ emissions cuts in all sectors to ensure an inhabitable planet for all. In step with the science, many wish this conflict to mark the beginning of an intensified programme of decarbonization, ridding economies of not only Russian, but all fossil fuels, wherever their geological source. But whilst political leaders scramble abroad to secure new sources of fossil fuels – sweet-talking sheiks and summoning LNG terminals from the ground – a resourceful and committed cohort, let’s call them the anti-climate lobby, refuse to accept this diagnosis. The partakers in the fossil industry have seized upon this crisis, sensing it as an opportunity to enlarge and entrench economic interests rooted in fossil fuels. As the course of action prescribed by the IPCC imperils this line of business, the attempts to secure fresh investments in fossil fuel infrastructures, to lock-in production and secure profits for the coming decades may feel all the more pressing. The solutions they pose also fit within the national frame and it is with nationalist political forces that they find their most ardent allies.“


The fundamental difference that we face in Europe at the moment between the Western approach characterized by the pursuit of peace and the Eastern one focused on liberation and independence poses a dramatic challenge – in order to survive and progress, democracy as a political regime has to be capable of defending itself also in a military way.“ Armed Democracy revolves around the concepts of imperialism, liberation, fascism, autocracy, revolution, and militarization in pursuit of the world to come on Europe’s burnt out land. Conceived by the Kyiv Biennial and Biennale Warszawa from the East Europe Biennial Alliance, this special public program, curated by Vasyl Cherepanyn within the 2nd edition of Biennale Warszawa, the program is a first part of the series organized by the East Europe Biennial Alliance discussing Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine and taking place in Warsaw, Prague, Kassel, and Riga over the summer and fall of 2022.

Olena Lyubchenko on Whiteness, Expropriation, War, and Social Reproduction in Ukraine (via LeftEast): „[…] when we hear on the news that ‘Ukraine is fighting a European war’ and ‘Ukraine is defending Europe’, amid images of fleeing ‘poor white’ women with children prioritized over racialized ‘Others’, ‘Ukraine’ is being made ‘white’ in the global imaginary. That is, „the injunction to ‘return to Europe’ by way of Europeanization is enabled and conditioned on the mythologies of Western civilization, and that Europeanization at once marks (promulgates) and unmarks (naturalizes) racial whiteness” [Nadezhda Husakouskaya and Randi Gressgård]. The paradox is that Europe’s existence as such has only been possible precisely because of the exploitation of global working peoples through expropriation of resources and today neoliberal economic reforms and reproduced by feminized labour.“

Vasyl Cherepanyn about the „inertness, hiding behind the European Wall“ (via L’Internationale): „Many Western institutions that have been claiming ‚radical political engagement‘ for years, have simply resorted to a white cube radicalism and self-satisfying humanitarianism, too afraid of acting politically beyond their comfort zone and unsettling their publics and authorities by attempting to affect the decision-making process regarding the Ukrainian cause.“


Tatsiana Shchurko on the War in Ukraine, Entangled Imperialisms, and Transnational Feminist Solidarity, via LeftEast (May 2, 2022): „[An] uneven knowledge production and the many implications of the war against Ukraine reveal the dire need to develop a feminist anti-capitalist critique of multiple imperialisms. This language should grow from within the occupied and suppressed communities of Eastern Europe and Eurasia. An anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist feminist positionality grasps that the local is part of a global in an effort to build transnational connections of mutual aid and support against state and corporate violence. For example, statements of solidarity with Ukraine expressed by the International Committee of Indigenous Peoples of Russia and Native American communities along with the anti-war feminist march in Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan) on March 8, 2022, pointing out that the war in Ukraine should be of concern for a broad transnational community, may serve as instrumental examples of alternative anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist solidarities that stretch beyond state regulations and macro-politics and foreground decolonial perspectives, necessary in addressing entanglements of multiple imperialisms. Such solidarities also bring to light hidden interconnections of the past that allowed for distant communities to survive and support each other against the violence of imperialist intervention and its attendant capitalist exploitation. Thus, the march in Bishkek reminds of the socialist roots of the International Women’s Day to call for internationalist, intersectional, class solidarity against imperialism and militarism.“

Vasyl Cherepanyn on that „It’ll take more than tanks to ease Germany’s guilt“ (via Politico): „Since the Soviet Union’s collapse, Germany has been imposing neocolonial optics on its Eastern European ‚peripheries,‘ and on the post-Soviet space in particular, where Ukraine was long considered a gray buffer zone about which the EU was ‚deeply concerned.‘ Germany didn’t bother itself much with differentiating between former Soviet countries’ pasts. Even until recently, any Ukrainian agenda in Germany was often ‚balanced‘ with a Russian perspective, so as to not exclude the latter by any means.“

An unnamed anarchist and art scholar, who joined the Territorial Defense Forces, quoted by Olexii Kuchanskyi in an essay on „Digital Leviathan and His Nuclear Tail“ (via Your Art and e-flux notes): „At dawn, Dima and I talked about cinema. Dima believes that cinema is inferior to literature as a means of expression because you spend much more time with a book than a film. It’s a really interesting point, something to dig into. I studied at the department of art theory & history and I never thought of it. Dima served in the military after school and worked at the factory all his life. He listens to rap, smokes pot, and tries to have fun. He is thirty-eight, his child was born last year. He likes Wong Kar-wai and is a fan of Asian cinema in general. Dima communicates by quoting Omar Khayyam, Confucius, and other awesome guys.“

mehrweniger Kurznews