Yves Sintomer's presentation began by identifying the different uses of the drawing of lots throughout history: divinatory practice, sharing of inheritance and war booty, then gradually selection of political leaders. The latter, which became the norm in Athens, ensured rapid task rotation, while at the same time guaranteeing collegiality and prohibiting the accumulation of functions.
At the end of this historical overview of the political uses of the drawing of lots, Yves Sintomer asked himself what meaning should be attributed to it. He rejected the essentialism of the Aristotelian thesis that this practice would be a guarantee of democracy because it would introduce a logic of radical equality between citizens. He distinguished between the drawing of lots as an expression of divine will for the city; the drawing of lots as an impartial method of conflict resolution; and the drawing of lots as a guarantee of the power of all over all.
According to the sociologist, if drawing lots disappeared during the transition to modernity on the grounds that it led to the arbitrary allocation of power, this was because the statistical argument of the representative sample, which enabled its scientific domestication, could not yet be mobilized in the debate. In its contemporary use, the drawing of lots, now conceived as a means of selecting a microcosm of the city, authorizes the constitution of deliberative assemblies of mini-publics, likely to help representative democracy make better choices. For Yves Sintomer, this is proof that the modern democratic experience must not be reduced to representative democracy; democratic legitimacy must be able to express itself through a plurality of channels.
The discussion highlighted the usefulness of taking an intellectual detour via the theory of the drawing of lots to deconstruct the monistic vision of electoral democracy and complicate the notion of democratic legitimacy.
