Re:Thinking with Adam GrantWhy politics have an elitism problem with Hélène Landemore | ReThinking
CHAPTERS
- 0:00 – 1:00
Politics as a job vs politics as a civic duty: the elitism problem
Landemore argues that modern democracies treat politics as a specialized profession—often dominated by lawyers—rather than a role ordinary citizens can perform. She challenges the reflexive fear that “ordinary people” means extremists, emphasizing that a true random sample is typically reasonable and representative of everyday society.
- •Ancient Greek view: politics as an amateur civic activity
- •Modern assumption: only certain “qualified” types (notably lawyers) can govern
- •Fear of “ordinary citizens” often fixates on trolls and outliers
- •Random samples tend to yield statistically average, reasonable participants
- 1:00 – 3:25
The origin story: from political theory to Iceland’s crowd-informed constitution
Grant asks how Landemore arrived at lot-based democracy; she traces it to Bernard Manin’s work and a pivotal encounter with Iceland’s constitutional experiment. Iceland showed her citizens could meaningfully participate in foundational governance, including public drafting and broad input.
- •Influence of Bernard Manin’s theory of representative government
- •2012 Iceland conference as a turning point
- •Constitutional drafting opened online for public contribution
- •950 randomly selected citizens used for early-stage brainstorming
- •Shift from “supplement” to “alternative system” thinking
- 3:25 – 5:06
Do legislators need legal training? How lawmaking actually happens
Grant raises the classic objection: lawmakers write laws, so shouldn’t they be legally trained? Landemore replies that elected officials often outsource technical drafting anyway, and citizen assemblies can mirror this division of labor with expert translation at the end.
- •Legislators frequently outsource drafting to lobbyists and experts
- •Citizens can set priorities, evaluate trade-offs, and craft proposals
- •French Citizens’ Convention for Climate showed citizens proposing measures
- •Facilitators and support teams enable effective citizen work
- •Legal experts can translate citizen intent into legislative language
- 5:06 – 6:38
Competence tests vs learning-by-deliberating: what citizens’ assemblies assume
Grant wonders whether lottery participation should require a basic civics test. Landemore explains that assemblies typically require no competence screening; instead, participants learn through weeks of structured exposure—reading, expert testimony, peer discussion, and questioning.
- •Most assemblies use no competence tests (sometimes not even proof of citizenship)
- •Participants self-educate over time with materials, videos, and dialogue
- •Members can invite or choose experts and ask questions
- •Deliberation is designed to build shared understanding, not just extract preexisting knowledge
- 6:38 – 9:14
Why inclusion matters beyond expertise: bonding, empathy, and “healing” politics
Landemore says she initially overemphasized assemblies as engines of collective intelligence and later recognized their emotional and social power. Including marginalized participants (e.g., homeless people) changes the conversation, humanizes policy consequences, and can reduce societal rage and alienation.
- •Assemblies create bonding, common identity, and shared goals
- •Including homeless participants reshapes housing-policy discussions
- •Elected bodies over-represent homeowners, skewing perspectives
- •Non-technical contributions still matter (care, reconciliation, wisdom)
- •Assemblies can serve a therapeutic function for a polarized society
- 9:14 – 11:59
The philosophical fork: democracy requires trust—or admit you prefer oligarchy
Grant asks Landemore to unpack her assumptions about human nature. She argues that distrust of ordinary citizens is widespread—even among democrats—and that rejecting popular capacity effectively endorses oligarchy/technocracy; she warns against demanding “proof” in ways historically used to exclude groups.
- •Modern societies often fail to cultivate trust in ordinary people
- •If you don’t trust citizens, you’re implicitly favoring rule by the few
- •Calls for “evidence” can become pretexts for exclusion (literacy tests)
- •Du Bois: political rights typically precede education, not vice versa
- •Greek democracy as a leap of empowerment, including paying the poor to participate
- 11:59 – 14:06
Replacing elections with lotteries: what ‘politics without politicians’ means
Grant presses on the practical vision: are elected officials replaced by random citizens? Landemore describes her model where lawmaking power rests with ordinary citizens, and both agree elections can elevate extreme or power-hungry personalities.
- •Landemore’s ‘Open Democracy’ / ‘Politics Without Politicians’ vision
- •Ordinary citizens are usually reasonable; outliers distort perceptions
- •Grant: elections may produce adverse selection (dark triad traits)
- •Landemore: elections over-select narcissistic/corruptible types, though good politicians exist
- 14:06 – 16:55
Why random selection can improve leadership: humility, duty, and self-regulation
Grant cites research suggesting random leaders show less hubris and more servant leadership. Landemore confirms this matches what she has observed: participants feel humbled by randomness, credit outcomes collectively, and groups organically discourage dominance and “politician-like” behavior.
- •Random assignment reduces “chosen one” mindset and selfishness
- •Assembly members feel duty and humility: “I didn’t earn this”
- •Deliberation creates collective outputs with shared ownership
- •Natural leaders emerge without translating into superiority
- •Group norms can ostracize grandstanding and preserve equality
- 16:55 – 21:38
Why the idea provokes anger: legitimacy fears, minority rights, and ‘mob rule’ confusion
Grant notes his lottery proposal drew polarized reactions; Landemore explains she sees similar hostility in public settings. She argues misunderstanding drives fear—especially conflating lot-based deliberation with direct democracy or historical populist authoritarianism—and clarifies lotteries suit legislatures, not all-powerful executives.
- •Strong backlash: fears of empowering the ‘ignorant masses’
- •Clarification: not proposing random selection for presidents/executive power
- •Law of large numbers: lotteries work best with sufficiently large assemblies
- •Concerns often center on rights, minorities, and 20th-century authoritarian history
- •Lot-based democracy is deliberative and mediated, not mob rule
- 21:38 – 24:04
Juries as the proof-of-concept and the legitimacy problem of ‘rigged’ lotteries
Grant argues jury duty already shows citizens can exercise serious judgment, so governance by lot should be plausible. He then raises a modern legitimacy risk: public suspicion that lotteries are rigged; Landemore suggests transparency via large, public, low-tech draws rather than complex stratification.
- •Jury system as an existing institution of random civic power
- •Tocqueville: juries as a school of democracy and people’s sovereignty
- •Legitimacy challenge: distrust in lottery fairness (even in sports)
- •Proposal: very large samples and public, transparent selection methods
- •Trade-off discussion: eliminating campaign costs vs building trust in selection
- 24:04 – 25:34
‘Open democracy or the mob will’: channeling unrest through structured participation
Grant reads Landemore’s Jan 6 tweet warning that if institutions don’t open deliberately, upheaval will force the issue. Landemore points to France’s Yellow Vest protests and the subsequent national debate as an example of converting anger into deliberation—arguing it’s strategic governance, not capitulation.
- •Elites fear the people; the response should be structured opening, not repression
- •Citizens’ assemblies and national debates as outlets beyond self-selected activists
- •Yellow Vests: protests over fuel tax sparked broader deliberative process
- •Deliberation helps process anger, vent grievances, and surface solutions
- •Core claim: you cannot govern against your own people without risking revolt
- 25:34 – 27:58
How to make deliberation work: time, representativeness, and redefining expert-citizen roles
Grant asks for the conditions that make deliberative bodies smarter rather than dumber. Landemore emphasizes time, diverse representative sampling, and robust expert and staff support—paired with a cultural shift where experts serve citizens rather than dominate them.
- •Effective deliberation requires time, not rushed decision-making
- •Diverse, representative samples improve quality and legitimacy
- •Expert support is essential; assemblies don’t ‘figure it out alone’
- •Key relationship: experts advise, citizens decide and steer inquiry
- •Both experts and citizens must adapt communication norms and expectations
- 27:58 – 32:23
Lightning round and pragmatic reforms: ‘more democracy,’ Ireland’s hybrid model, and scale doubts
In rapid-fire Q&A, Landemore criticizes proposals for less democracy or literacy tests, arguing elitism fuels populist backlash. She recommends Congress experiment with lot-based processes, cites Ireland’s hybrid assembly leading to same-sex marriage reform, and notes her evolving thinking about scale and complexity in larger societies.
- •Worst idea: reducing democracy or reintroducing literacy tests
- •Best advice: pilot lot-based democracy like Ireland’s citizen-politician hybrid
- •Ireland example: deliberation led to referendum on same-sex marriage and restored trust
- •Landemore open to reformist ‘spaces’ within electoral systems, not only full replacement
- •She’s reconsidering how scale may change deliberative dynamics
- 32:23 – 36:32
Organizational governance crossover and the path forward: bottom-up adoption and politician incentives
Landemore asks Grant about corporate governance incentives that suppress truth-telling; he agrees and shares Bridgewater’s practice of rewarding constructive challenge. Closing, they confront the political obstacle: incumbents won’t vote themselves out; Landemore argues change must grow from local assemblies until politicians see legitimacy gains outweigh reduced power.
- •Landemore: incentive structures in organizations can block honest dissent
- •Grant: example of evaluating employees on challenging higher-ups (Bridgewater)
- •Obstacle: politicians’ self-interest in retaining power
- •Proposed strategy: multiply citizens’ assemblies bottom-up until benefits are undeniable
- •Trade-off for politicians: less power, more legitimacy; reminder of public service duty
