Sortition Within and Beyond the State: Legitimacy Perceptions and Democratic Achievability

This paper draws on Erik Olin Wright’s Real Utopias framework to analyze the achievability of sortition-based democratic innovations through the lens of perceived legitimacy. It examines how the legitimacy of randomly selected individuals is understood and contested by different actors in two case studies and how these interpretations illuminate the conditions under which sortition might transform existing decision-making structures. The Real Utopias framework distinguishes three analytical dimensions for evaluating democratic alternatives: desirability, concerned with the values and principles that make an alternative worth pursuing; viability, focused on whether and how such alternatives could function in practice without generating self-defeating effects; and achievability, which addresses the social and political conditions under which those alternatives might emerge and endure. Achievability is not a simple yes-or-no question; it depends on historically situated configurations of institutions, actors, and power relations. This paper approaches legitimacy perceptions as an analytical proxy to engage with such contingent dimension. By revealing how and why different actors interpret the rightful place of randomly selected individuals within specific institutional contexts, such perceptions bring into view factors and elements that either hinder or enable the transformation of decision-making structures through sortition. The institutional contexts considered in this study are a regional government and a large renewable energy cooperative. The first case is the Citizens’ Assembly for Climate of Catalonia, where 100 individuals were randomly selected from the region’s resident population to deliberate on two climate-related policy dilemmas. The second case is a deliberative process implemented within Som Energia, where 30 individuals were randomly selected from the cooperative’s membership to deliberate and define the cooperative’s strategic framework. This paper explores the perceived legitimacy articulated by two groups in each case: the randomly selected participants and the actors responsible for implementing decisions. Drawing on participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and document analysis, the analysis examines how these actors perceive the role and political competence of lay participants in their respective decision-making processes. It then investigates how prevailing understandings of representation, responsiveness, accountability, and expertise shape the horizon of what can currently be envisioned as legitimately assignable to a decision-making body selected by lot. By comparing these perspectives across two distinct decision-making arenas, the paper examines how perceived legitimacy is constructed and contested within and beyond the state. The comparison allows for identifying recurring narratives as well as context-specific differences in how the role of randomly selected individuals might be justified, limited, or expanded. The paper ultimately shows how these legitimacy narratives shed light on the conditions that facilitate or hinder the institutionalization of sortition as a democratic innovation in contemporary decision-making processes.