John Burnheim's 1985 proposal to replace elections and multi-purpose territorial states with many specialised functional bodies whose members are chosen by lot from those affected. Never implemented.
Philosopher John Burnheim set out demarchy in Is Democracy Possible? (1985). Decisions now taken by multi-function agencies, from nation-states to municipalities, would pass to autonomous specialised bodies (for example health, transport or education). Each would be run by a group chosen by lot to be statistically representative of those affected, with participation proportional to the degree affected. Bodies would coordinate by negotiation or, failing that, quasi-judicial arbitration. The design is explicitly anti-state and refuses sovereignty to any geographically defined group. No jurisdiction has adopted it; lot-selected citizens' assemblies exist but are advisory and territorial. Objections: who counts as affected, accountability of unelected samples, coordination without a centre, and feasibility.
Not implemented. Discussed in democratic theory and in the literature on selecting decision-makers by lot; critics question its feasibility, especially at global scale.
In Is Democracy Possible? (1985) Burnheim proposed abandoning elections in most cases and choosing decision-makers by lot, so that each decision-making body is statistically representative of those affected by its decisions.[1]
Burnheim argued that decisions of multi-function agencies, from nation-states to municipalities, could be taken by autonomous specialised agencies coordinated by negotiation or quasi-judicial arbitration, with participation extending to those affected in proportion to the degree affected.[1]
Critics regard demarchy as hard to implement: Hiebaum calls it a thoroughly anti-statist conception, notes that not many will find it feasible and attractive, and judges it a dubious basis for global democracy.[1]