Yale political theorist Hélène Landemore has a soft spot for shy people - the wallflowers least likely to seek or desire power. She believes shy people should play a bigger role in governing. In fact, she argues they might be key to fixing democracy.
In her new book, "Politics Without Politicians: The Case for Citizen Rule" (Thesis), Landemore makes the case that, under the right conditions, everyday people, even the shy, can govern more effectively than professional politicians.
"Modern electoral systems tend to produce a professional political class - often composed of wealthy, well-connected, and ambitious individuals - that is detached from the broader public," said Landemore, the Damon Wells '58 Professor of Political Science in Yale's Faculty of Arts and Sciences. "The book argues for returning to the basic ancient Greek assumptions that politics is an amateur sport, not a professional activity, in which ordinary citizens play a direct role in governing."
Landemore advocates for citizens' assemblies - bodies composed of randomly selected citizens who deliberate on public issues and make policy recommendations. These assemblies - examples of which have occurred in democracies across the globe - are designed to be deliberative and informed by expert testimony, she said, but ultimately guided by the citizens' judgment.
In a recent conversation with Yale News, Landemore discussed the problem with today's electoral politics, the benefits of empowering the shy people, and the close bonds she has seen form among participants in citizens' assemblies.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
In the first chapter, you cite British essayist G. K. Chesterton's definition of democracy: "All real democracy is an attempt (like that of a jolly hostess) to bring the shy people out." What does the quote mean to you?
Hélène Landemore: Chesterton defines democracy much differently than the definitions I usually encounter as a political scientist. I appreciate how he envisions democracy not as a mechanism for selecting elites, but as an inclusive social gathering where an inviting female figure, the "jolly hostess," is tasked with throwing a good party and making sure everyone feels included. She's paying special attention to the shy - the wallflowers who are reluctant to hit the dance floor, or who maybe refrain from saying something in the conversation. She's trying to guide and organize things so that everybody has fun, and everybody has a say. To me, that is a very inspiring vision of politics.
What's so bad about professional politicians?
Landemore: Professional politicians deliver suboptimal governance in two ways. First, they end up forming a self-perpetuating political class with its own interests that sometimes also serves the interests of the wealthy elites who finance them. I don't focus so much on this problem in the book because I believe there are ways to control the influence of money on politics. Second, elections systematically oversample the bold, charismatic, wealthy, connected, and power hungry while under sampling people with other traits, such as patience, kindness, or honesty. This produces a homogenous ruling group that brings enormous blind spots and a limited range of perspectives to problem solving.
On top of that, they remain in office for long periods, even though elections are supposed to periodically renew the pool of elected officials. The incumbency rates are very high. As we've seen, some politicians linger even when they've clearly become too old or infirm to do the job well. This has caused an ossification of the ruling class.
What's an example of a citizens' assembly that drove a change in public policy?
Landemore: Ireland's 2016 Citizens' Assembly on abortion is a leading example. Ninety-nine randomly selected citizens were convened to reconsider constitutional restrictions that had criminalized abortion since the 1980s. Ireland is very Catholic and quite conservative in some respects, but people's views on abortion had evolved over the years. There was a desire to revisit the issue, but the political class was reluctant to do that. The professional politicians had electoral and partisan incentives to maintain the status quo. So, instead, they handed the hot potato to a body of ordinary citizens.
After hearing from medical experts, advocates representing both sides of the argument, and critics, the assembly recommended liberalizing the law. Parliament subsequently put the issue to a national referendum, which passed with nearly two-thirds support. The process helped bridge a gap between a cautious political class and a public whose views had evolved, demonstrating how a citizens' assembly can unlock politically sensitive debates.
What are the key ingredients to an effective a citizens' assembly?
Landemore: Three elements are essential. First, the sampling must be truly random and representative of the population. It must be carefully structured to minimize selection bias - volunteer-based models are a non-starter because the whole point is that we don't want volunteers. That leaves out the shy people, right? You must select people at random. You need to reach deeply into the body politic and include people who would never volunteer for the role. Then you incentivize the people you have invited to accept the invitation. This still leaves a large amount of self-selection as people can say no, and in the ideal, participation would be mandatory to solve that problem).
Second, expert input must inform but not dominate the process. Experts are there to provide information, not to impart their own beliefs and dictate conclusions. They must not use their authority, credibility, and credentials to basically teach the participants. Instead, the citizens should be treated as mature, autonomous adults with the capacity to process information and make informed judgments. The key is to create a set of rules governing the assembly through which everyone understands and respects their positions. The experts are there in the service of the deliberative process, but it's ultimately up to the citizens to decide.
Finally, political will is essential. I talk about politics "without politicians," but I don't think this vision of politics can be successfully realized without the support and assistance of politicians. Citizens' assemblies must have buy-in from formal political institutions so that their recommendations can have a real impact and not simply serve as symbolic exercises. The example from Ireland shows how this can work.
What have you observed about the people who participate in these assemblies?
Landemore: In the book, I try to capture in plain language the intense bonds of friendship that form among participants across social and ideological divides. They use words like "love," "passion," and "solidarity" to describe relationships with their peers. They joke and laugh with one another; they share hugs, exchange gifts, and perform act of kindness. I was surprised by how they make room for these emotions, which are so rarely apparent in politics as we know it. It is a form of civic love.
In 2023, I served on the governance committee of a citizens' convention held in Paris to reconsider France's laws on euthanasia and assisted dying. One of the participants, a widow from the north of France, on weekends would visit the tomb of her late husband in Montparnasse Cemetery. One day, she confided to one of her peers that she didn't have the courage to go to visit her husband's grave alone that weekend. Later that day, 10 other participants showed up and accompanied her to the cemetery.
I think citizens' assemblies foster an atmosphere of shared purpose and mutual respect that allows participants to form these bonds even while they strongly disagree about the issues at hand. The structured deliberation, shared fact-finding, and collective responsibility for outcomes generates trust, solidarity, and even a renewed sense of patriotism. It's far different than what you encounter these days when you tune into the U.S. Congress.
