[Note: This essay is part of a series of argumentative reflections on political philosophy [1].]

When we look at the corrupt and unaccountable nature of our political elites, whether in terms of our civil governments, businesses, or other institutions, it is hard to feel optimistic about the state of our civic culture. When we see members of Congress vote rules into place that they never read, pass laws that don’t apply to them, and that in the best of governments, it is hard to feel confident. It is even less easy to feel confident about the success of civil government when we see nations (like Thailand) that cannot seem to hold electoral governments together because their corrupt elites cannot accept even timid democratic governments that represent outsiders. When even church governments seek to manipulate their governance to thwart the will of the majority, and seek to capture even ecclesiastical governments for a small and selfish and corrupt elite, it is hard to be confident about the sort of choices that are available to select people into office, or the behavior of human authorities in general given the widespread and damaging effects of ruthless and corrupt ambition in our lives and in our world.

Is the choosing of leaders by lot a valid alternative? Both the ancient Greeks and Hebrews (and the early New Testament church) used this method in one or another fashion. There are some concerns, of course, about poor leaders being chosen by lots, but given the poor leaders we have at present, random chance could hardly be worse. There are some good theoretical justifications for the use of lots from a religious perspective, including the fact that it is often through random chance undirected by human ambition and gamesmanship, that determines the will of God in important cases where one wants to gain legitimacy and avoid even the appearance of politicking [2]. There are at least a few ways that lots could be used effectively to overcome the sorts of corrupt political problems that we have. There could be, as in Acts 1, a prior set of qualifications that determines who is appropriate as a given leader, with a lot choosing those who qualify to provide them with office. One could easily imagine this process repeating itself every time a leader needed to be chosen, to help ensure for rotation of office and the development of skills at governance for many. Additionally, choosing districts by lot could help avoid some of the gerrymandering problems that are a common issue in districting. Also, contentious decisions could be settled by lot or a series of lots, to avoid logrolling or other kind of political pressure when there was equal division and a lack of consensus. The use of lots for the choice of many offices can help ensure legitimacy for offices, even if it is tempting to think that the use of lots would then drive people to seek to master how to make what appeared to be random to not really be random for their own selfish benefit. Perhaps I am more than a little cynical, however.

[1] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2014/09/23/argumentative-reflection-do-we-need-a-state/

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/argumentative-reflection-justice/

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2014/10/07/argumentative-reflection-luck-equality-and-freedom/

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2014/10/17/argumentative-reflection-thoughts-on-the-stranger/

[2] See, for example, a couple of Bible passages:

Proverbs 16:33: “The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the Lord.”

Numbers 33:54: “And you shall divide the land by lot as an inheritance among your families; to the larger you shall give a larger inheritance, and to the smaller you shall give a smaller inheritance; there everyone’s inheritance shall be whatever falls to him by lot. You shall inherit according to the tribes of your fathers.”

Acts 1:26: “And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”