Politics Without Politicians: The Case for Citizen Rule

by Hélène Landemore

Brought to you by Penguin.

Politicians have failed us. But democracy doesn’t have to.

Bought by special interests, detached from real life, obsessed with re-election. Politicians make big promises, deliver little to nothing, and keep the game rigged in their favour. But what can we do?

With disarming clarity and a deep sense of urgency, acclaimed political theorist Hélène Landemore argues that electoral politics is broken but democracy isn’t. We’ve just been doing it wrong. Drawing on ancient Athenian practices and contemporary citizens’ assemblies, Landemore champions an alternative approach that is alive, working, and growing around the civic lotteries that select everyday people to govern, not as career politicians but as temporary stewards of the common good.

When regular citizens come together in this way, they make smarter, fairer, more forward-thinking decisions, often bringing out the best in one another. Witnessing this process firsthand, Landemore has learned that democracy should be like a good party where even the shyest guests feel welcome to speak, listen, and be heard. With sharp analysis and real-world examples, drawing from her experience with deliberative processes in France and elsewhere, Landemore shows us how to move beyond democracy as a spectator sport, embracing it as a shared practice—not just in the voting booth but in shaping the laws and policies that govern our lives.

If you’ve ever felt powerless, Politics Without Politicians will show you how we can take back democracy.

Hélène Landemore 2026 (P) Penguin Audio 2026

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Audiobook

Audible Audio

Published February 10, 2026

Reviews

[Anna · Rating 1 out of 5]

Lot-based citizen assemblies instead of career politicians is such an interesting concept with so much potential and precedent. If only the author had explored this in some kind of structured, informed way! But no, instead it was a lot of random, meandering personal anecdotes from two events she attended and recommendations like "plush sofas and candles in Danish design" would make people more comfortable. I also cannot get over the awful, repeated use of the term "shy" to describe people who experience racism, homophobia, ableism etc.

[Saif Elhendawi · Rating 3 out of 5]

“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.” Although being far from an anarchist or communist text, Landemore still provides a robust framework for direct participation and public assemblies and a critique of hierarchical and representative politics. It does still shy away from directly critiquing capitalism or statism, thus not being as radical as it may seem at first glance.



Sortition Democracy
The critique and representation of politicians in popular media as conniving selfish liars who would do anything to get into power has become an established trope for most people. Thus, contemporary populism whether liberal or more typically now conservative, usually masquerades as being "anti-elite" and "anti-establishment". The reality, however, is that the system of representative electoral politics attracts a certain kind of personality to begin with. “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.” Given the popular representation, the reality of corruption, lobbying, etc. for someone to willingly become a candidate nowadays, either they are completely self-interested or delusionally naïve. Landemore appeals to the older definition and form of democratic politics, sortition. A system that uses lottery or some sort of randomness so that candidates are not aware beforehand that they can reach power. She discusses historical examples of this from ancient Athens to Medieval Venice to showcase the advantages of such a system. When applied, it is usually combined with some sort of term-limit, and heavy restrictions on permanent powers and decision-making. She also discusses more modern applications of this system in the form of US jury duty, Icelandic National Assemblies and France's Citizen Conventions.



Assemblies and Direct Participation
The author particularly dedicates a big portion of the book covering France's Citizen Conventions. These public assemblies were held twice, once in 2019 and again in 2023. They were somewhat of a response to the "Great National Debate" following the Yellow Vests movement of 2018, in order to placate and appease the public. They didn't actually hold any real de jure power, but did have some de facto influence. The first convention which was focused on solutions and legislation related to climate change, agreed on 149 proposals which were submitted to the French Parliament. Most of the proposals were outright rejected or heavily watered down. "Participants later scored the government's implementation as an average of 3.3 out of 10." The second convention was focused on end of life legislation, primarily access to palliative care and euthanasia. The final proposals (although still being edited) was largely passed through the government's "end of life bill" and thus had a more substantial real world influence. Importantly, these conventions also offer all kinds of opportunity for real scientific study of direct participation assemblies and sortition based systems. There are several key ideas that the author particularly pays attention to: firstly, that "normal" everyday citizens showed "high epistemic competence" regardless of educational level, class and/or backgrounds, people were heavily invested in learning about the issues and establishing clear methodological rigor for final decision making. Although, there were experts and social workers on hand, much like in a jury system or in a court setting, the assemblies still exercised the final say and usually didn't include the experts in their discussions or debates. Secondly, shy, awkward, or introverted people who would normally be very afraid of public speaking, let alone participating in political debates, were much more likely to be active participants compared to other electoral or representative based systems. Thirdly, participants were highly empathetic and much more likely to adopt systemic solutions and shift from normalized rigid NIMBY style arguments. The author quotes directly from interviews and surveys with words like "love" "solidarity" "care", etc. being commonly used by participants to describe one another and the whole experience despite the vast socio-economic gaps between the people.



Lessons Learned and Prefigurative Politics
The most exciting and interesting part for me, personally, was the discussion around improving the system in the second convention after observing some mistakes or missed opportunities from the first convention. The organizers noted things like selection bias and other statistical devices that could lead to certain systemic biases in their selection methods and tried to account for them. In doing so, they ask and discuss important questions such as who is likely to agree to participate based on a phone call, and who is likely to answer a strange number to begin with. Should we set hard-coded minimums on certain minorities to encourage their participation? Should we use different selection methods to eliminate statistical biases as much as possible? What kind of ways can the technocratic experts and facilitators framing and influence be reduced and controlled? What kind of economic incentives and replacements such as child care and transportation or direct monetary reimbursements provided to encourage participation without introducing new biases. Such questions are explored and discussed heavily by the author in the later chapters of the work. These kind of questions are not only relevant to these kind of assemblies but they can easily relate to a lot of the prefigurative politics, mutual aid organization and direct action affinity groups that are organized. From finding ways to encourage shy people to ways to decentralize tactics and avoid adopting vanguardism or rigid technocracies into the strategies of such prefigurative efforts.



I am guessing most can think about the critiques that come with such a mainstream work. Even though the topic itself is radical, the framing is consistently defanged purposefully by the author. In an effort to make the work more "journalistic" and "scientific" the final message is deradicalized and the author consistently stops short from outright critiquing statist institutions. Governmental actions and ideas generally or specific politicians (in this case all of them, actually) can be critiqued, but the system as a whole is still presented as a necessary evil that we must find a way to curb through regulations. Basically, the same arguments that are used by the typical liberal nowadays, but obviously the core premise is still much more radical than expected. Furthermore, there is no direct commentary on how these systems can function as replacements to the state apparatus as a whole. Arguments are made for assemblies to be more included in legislation and in consultation, but not so much for executive functions. Aside from promoting poorer class participation in the assemblies and positively discussing reforms to account for economic incentives for this, the author does not actually critique the capitalist status quo or directly promote any kind of socialist alternative. Alas, the lessons about horizontal organization and direct participation are interesting and ultimately make this work worth the read.

[Rick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Like having somebody explain to me, calmly and with ample supporting arguments, why I should be speaking Esperanto.

[Andy Ritchie · Rating 4 out of 5]

A book that provides an interesting insight into the potential for alternatives to the electoral democracy that we are used to and which tends to create an 'elite' of politicians.
Helene explores, through her personal experience, the potential for sortition (where those who govern are drawn entirely by lot, as was the case in ancient Greece) and the potential role of citizen representation (as has been used in Iceland, Ireland and France) as either radical alternatives or possible reforms to our current system.
Granted the book gets just a little bogged down about two-thirds of the way through in the detail of how best to make a citizen convention work effectively (and examples of what could potentially scupper the process), and perhaps the last chapter (on how we get there) doesn't perhaps go into sufficient detail about either the potential blockers and how those blockers could be addressed (but maybe that was me just hoping that the last chapter would be a bit more...inspirational).
But all that said, it's a pretty decent read and certainly makes a strong case for greater citizen involvement, however improbable that may be in reality.

[Beth · Rating 3 out of 5]

The most interesting thing I learned from this book is that what I thought I had known—that the Athenians invented democracy—left out the part that in ancient Athens’s democracy, the assemblies that made decisions were selected not by elections but by lot. That is, the members were randomly selected from among all citizens, held their positions for a limited time, and then were replaced by other randomly selected citizens. And, for the most part, that system worked, and for about as long as America’s version of democracy: 250 years. Lord knows, America’s democracy is currently on pretty shaky legs.

It’s worth noting that “for the most part”: there is one extremely famous exception: the conviction and execution of Socrates for corrupting the youth. Ancient Athens wasn’t nuts about experts.

In Politics Without Politicians, Hélène Landemore advocates a return to a type of Athenian-style democracy, wherein many important policy decisions are made by assemblies formed by lot. Turns out—we Americans can be so ignorant about what goes on in the rest of the world!—there have been a number of prominent experiments in such deliberative bodies: in Iceland in 2010-13 to revise their constitution in the wake of the international financial crisis which affected Iceland more than most countries; in Ireland, where randomly selected citizens’ assemblies recommended legalizing gay marriage and easing restrictions on abortion; and in France, where citizen assemblies made recommendations about climate change and assisted suicide. Landemore discusses each of these examples at length. Each proceeded in different ways, with different degrees of influence, but what impresses me about the accounts is that, at least judging from Landemore’s descriptions, the randomly selected citizen assemblies worked much better than I might have expected.

Landemore argues that short-term citizen assemblies selected by lot will empower ordinary people, will be less subject to corruption than elected bodies, and will, most importantly, be far more likely to reflect the will of the people than our current elected bodies. It’s certainly true that in America, there is widespread agreement that gerrymandering is bad, that there should be far less money in politics, that there should be more restrictions on gun purchases, and on and on. But somehow Congress never passes laws that reflect the will of the people. Landemore’s examples suggest—though hardly prove—that deliberative assemblies chosen by lot will actually deliberate and make thoughtful recommendations. It’s also clear that there is less certainty, judging from the limited recent examples, that the recommendations by such assemblies will actually be adopted, in which case the whole experiment could prove to be a monumental waste of time and money, and could only increase citizen cynicism.

So all of that is interesting. What’s a lot less interesting is the endless and frequently repetitive discussion of ways and means. For regular readers, as opposed to people tasked with designing a citizens’ assembly, all the nuts and bolts become tedious. In other words, there is a LOT of filler.

I also got tired very, very early of the references to “the shy,” which really does NOT mean “people who are timid by nature.” Landemore really means something like “the voiceless,” people who come from groups who ordinarily don’t get much say in decision making: poor or homeless people; racial, ethnic, or religious minorities—pretty much anyone under the U.S. rubric of “DEI,” and then some. People who may be quite confident and assertive on their home turf but not inclined to speak up among people they consider more powerful. Also, in some instances, what we might call “shy” people. Landemore does make a case that such people will be empowered by a system of random selection, accompanied by extra efforts to include people who might not otherwise speak up, and that their contributions are extremely valuable. My complaint about the word “shy” is sort of nitpicky, especially since Landemore is not a native English speaker, but there it is. The term permeates the entire book and actually, I think, weakens a legitimate point.

My verdict: this is a thought-provoking book as to its core idea, less successful in its execution. I give it 3.5 stars.

[Pien M · Rating 3 out of 5]

(Gelezen voor mijn vak over de geschiedenis van mensenrechten en grondwetten)

In de kern een bijzonder en prikkelend betoog. Ik ben het eens met de stelling (of is dat nog een stelling? misschien beter verwoord als 'het feit') dat de electorale democratie zoals we deze nu kennen, stuk is. De uitkomst die Landemore aanbiedt - een parlement met op lot gekozen 'gewone' burgers, ter vervanging van alle huidige beroepspolitici - is in eerste opzet een interessant gedachte-experiment.

Daarmee biedt Landemore een oplossing voor een aantal structurele problemen; op lot gekozen vertegenwoordigers zijn minder makkelijk te corrumperen, geven (in haar woorden) 'verlegen' groepen de ruimte mee te praten en betrekt de bevolking actief en haast plichtmatig bij de democratie. Goede zaken dus.

Daartegenover staat wel dat Landemore te erg gegrepen lijkt door haar eigen project. Twee voorbeelden met zeer wisselende uitkomsten (de 'crowdsourced' grondwet van IJsland in 2008 en de Franse Burgerconventie voor het Klimaat uit 2019) lijken voor haar genoeg 'proof of concept'. Daarbij zijn de dingen die ze daar heeft gezien - de verbroedering, de bijzonder goede beleidsvoorstellen - voor haar sluitend bewijs voor de succesformule van dit concept.

Landemore haalt meermaals Athene aan als hét voorbeeld dat een democratie zonder beroepspolitici kan werken, maar wuift het gros van de kritiek op dat systeem af. Dat doet ze ook met cruciale kritiek op haar eigen voorstel. Hoe worden mensen geselecteerd voor een burgerraad? Met algoritmes (en die zijn nog niet goed, maar gaan dat nog worden). Hoe krijgt politieke verantwoording een plek in dit systeem? Maakt niet uit, we verzinnen tzt wel iets. Dat vind ik een zwaktebod dat veel afdoet aan de algehele kracht van haar betoog.

Al met al denk ik dat het een nieuw, prikkelend idee betreft voor een probleem dat wel degelijk aan de horizon dreigt. Een idee waar nog veel aan geschaafd moet worden, maar waar Landemore een mooie basis voor heeft gelegd.

[Tom · Rating 2 out of 5]

Have you ever made bread and tried to cajole the dough with a rolling pin into becoming as thin and elongated as possible? I think that is what Ms. Landemore is doing in this book, and at times, this is what I felt while reading certain passages of it.

Her premise is intriguing, and she makes some salient observations based on her research and some of the deliberative assemblies and conventions she attended. But this is by far and large, very anecdotal, and one reviewer noted that there were no statistics to support her contentions. To be fair, she openly admits she is a political theorist, but even so, some data would have helped document the trends and tendencies that she is speaking of.

I enjoyed reading about the Irish, Icelandic, and French experiences with deliberative assemblies, but I would have liked to have learned about other similar cases outside of Europe. It is unfortunate that she did not examine a high-context culture like Japan. Similarly, it would have been interesting to see how the African concept of Ubuntu would either lend itself or impede the formation of deliberative assemblies in that continent. Can what Landemore proposes work in countries where political conditions are less than ideal? We only have a brief mention when the author cites Nicole Curato's term "fragile contexts" (p. 40)

Where she lost me was when she delved into emotional fluff in the chapters, "How to Be a Jolly Hostess" and "Designing for All". Once again, she resorts to sharing anecdotes that capture the good feelings that come with assemblies that are open to all, especially "the shy". There is some value to this, but I do not think she needed to devote 40 pages to it.

I think this could have been written as a long journal article. Her expansiveness dilutes her premise a bit. I still like the idea, but I would need more context and more examples to have a better understanding of the concept of "politics without politicians".

[Julian Pritchard · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is unconventional in that it takes seriously the populist critiques on both the right and left, arguing that more popular participation is necessary for the future of democracy. I think she is right that there is widespread disaffection and alienation in response to perceived elite domination, and that it's true that wealthy elite groups that make up official political bodies are not very representative of a random sampling of individuals. However, I'm not entirely convinced that citizens' assemblies could "fix" all of the problems of democracy. As examples, Landemore uses debates over climate change and assisted suicide. In the case of the former, I think that elites probably do know better than the average person about how to deal with climate change. I agree with Landemore in theory that it's important for "everyday people" to participate in politics, but some of this book left me scratching my head.

It's true that it would be more constructive to engage politely with climate change deniers than to ridicule them, thus further confirming their anti-elite biases and delusions, but there is a certain point where some ideas truly do not deserve political credence. Ultimately, in mass politics, "the people" will have to be represented by somebody. Although I'm critical of many establishment politicians and the way they mostly respond to elite demands, as demonstrated by Gilens, it doesn't really seem like Landemore has any solutions for large-scale implementation.

[Jack · Rating 5 out of 5]

Oh my gosh, I loved this book.

I was hooked just by the title: Politics Without Politicians. And yes, this book is probably controversial—at least to politicians—but controversial does not mean wrong. It is enormously thought-provoking.

The premise is that ordinary citizens, chosen by lot, can actually do a very good job of writing laws. Landemore cites modern experiments with citizen assemblies and constitution-making in places such as Ireland, Iceland, and France. She also shows how, in ancient Greece, participation by ordinary citizens selected by lot was considered part of civic duty rather than something that should be left exclusively to a professional political class.

And if ordinary citizens can do a decent job of lawmaking, they may actually have some important advantages over professional politicians. They are less dependent on donors, parties, reelection campaigns, and the machinery of political influence.

Citizen participation can also increase people’s sense of ownership and civic engagement. I suppose those aren’t strictly requirements for a democracy, but… it would at least be nice if people cared.

I came away from the book thinking that our professional political class operates within a system that has become deeply captured by money. Landemore offers a provocative alternative: perhaps democracy doesn’t require us to find better politicians. Perhaps we should be asking how much politics needs politicians in the first place.

[Pablo Paniagua Prieto · Rating 2 out of 5]

I honestly was expecting something more serious and more academic than this. The book is basically a bunch of cherry-picked, random stories and tales about love and brotherly love within the French and Icelandic cases of citizens’ assembly (cute but hardly convincing as social science), a random collection of biasly-picked episodes from a few cases to try to make a broader point and a bold claim about deliberative democracy, which is sustained with just fluf not by real data or systematic analysis. Still, with very little real evidence and with a few data points, usually extrapolating experiences from a few small cases at a small scale of either homogeneous and small societies or experiences that cost taxpayers more than 6 million euros and ended up not doing much, and making analogies about family, love, and diners, that will make bad policy. Read this book only if you are already a "landemorian" or a hard-core deliberative democrat; otherwise, if you are looking for serious social science, you will be disappointed by the level of the arguments and the evidence put forth. I was expecting something more robust coming from, in theory, a leading political theorist and political scientist.

[Shimon · Rating 5 out of 5]

The premise might initially sound crazy or far-fetched, but Landemore lays out a reasoned argument backed by real-world examples that shows how citizens can self-rule. Politicians traditionally posses any of these traits: charlatan, megalomaniac, extrovert, egomaniac, narcissists, sociopath, entertainer, orator, tall, handsome, wealthy, self-serving. But do they have qualities necessary for ruling a nation? Some do, but most don't.

Our elections are geared toward choosing flashy candidates with money, self-confidence and an ability to sell themselves. How about all those poor, short, shy, fat and ugly citizens who never had an opportunity to attend an Ivy League school? Could they rule? Maybe. With a large group of randomly selected citizens, we can be represented by real people with real problems who actually reflect the populace. And it has been shown their decisions as good as or usually better than those made by professional politicians.

Most governments have very low satisfaction ratings and Citizen Rule is a serious option that can help improve lives across the world by addressing and resolving problems that we face as societies.

[Candace Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

In a moment when the political landscape feels exhausting and, frankly, hopeless, this book arrived like a breath of fresh air. Not because it offers easy answers. It doesn't, but because it dares to ask a question most of us have stopped asking: what could actually be different?
Landemore doesn't just critique the system. She shares real, grounded examples of how societies have experimented with governance that puts citizens -actual people - back at the center. It connected directly to some of my own research, and reminded me that the power of the citizen is not just a romantic idea. It is a documented, practiced reality in places willing to try.
What I appreciated most is that she doesn't oversimplify. This isn't a utopian manifesto. It's a thoughtful, evidence-based look at what democracy could look like when politicians stop governing for themselves and start getting out of the way.
If you are feeling disillusioned right now, and who isn't, this book won't fix everything, but it will remind you that other ways of existing are not only possible, they are already happening somewhere.

[Emma · Rating 4 out of 5]

To be fair I don't feel like I needed much convincing, but the case she makes for citizen rule/citizens’ assemblies seems solid to me, I say let's go.
I genuinely belive that what she writes about everyday people making better decisions than the ruling class of politicians, and while it may not have worked out perfectly for Iceland their idea of kicking out all sitting politicians seems inspired. Especially as we're moving all the more towards authoritarian societies were politicians make decisions primarily for their own gain and not for the good of the public.
While forcing everyday people to be mopre active and engaged politically might not be all that popular, it would probably make for better political decisions.

[Ralph · Rating 4 out of 5]

An enjoyably optimistic (and rather more layperson-friendly than I had expected) treatment of "thick" citizen deliberation from a scholar I deeply respect and admire. My sole criticism comes from the lack of discussion of the threat posed by contemporary illiberalism. There was, in my opinion, not sufficient addressing of what the current, frightening wave of right-wing authoritarianism and associated ethnic nationalism and narrowing of what it means to belong in a democracy means for the prospects of more deliberative democracies. Deliberation, for all its promises, is decidedly more demanding than aggregation in what it demands of citizens and their recognition of one another.

[Ryan Mizzen]

An excellent insight into citizens' assemblies, with invaluable first-hand experience (as a researcher and as someone who helped shape and co-ordinate assemblies), that really brings these processes to life.

I was particularly inspired by the idea that assembly members formed strong bonds with each other, and some members appeared to leave them as changed people.

This is essential reading for those seeking to learn more about participatory democracy. It also provides a strong argument for the need to switch to citizen-led democracy to help heal our social divides and tackle the big challenges facing humanity on both national and international levels.

[Annie Long · Rating 3 out of 5]

The thesis was very convincing and I agree that politics without politicians is great in theory and POSSIBLE in practice.

But the author lost me with the middle chunk. It was a lot of examples from other western countries which did provide context and examples for execution of lot-based politics and assemblies. But I lowk don’t care for other countries as examples and I would’ve preferred hypothetical examples for how sortition would be executed in America

[Patrick]

I was skeptical but thought I would give this a try. Should have trusted my gut. I appreciate the overall premise that sortition would bring more voices into the picture who are typically marginalized by features of an electoral representative system. And maybe I would read an essay about that. But the presentation here seems a bit slapdash and overly reliant on vague terms like “shy.”

[Morgan · Rating 3 out of 5]

A really good thesis and background information on the theory of citizen assemblies marred by anecdotal recounting and self-congratulatory praise. This would have been far stronger as an essay than a book, although it’s fundamental theme - reimagining not just western constructs of democracy but the very notion of political legitimacy - is well worth the price of admission.

[Kyle]

Covered a lot that I didn't expect. I certainly didn't expect to cry while reading it. The chapter on love alone is worth the price of admission. But the whole thing is thoughtful and worthwhile. May its advice and its spirit multiply!

[Colin · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent book about the nature and practice of democracy and the possibilities of democracy over representative democracy (which is inevitably oligarchic in nature). Worth reading and considering.

[Canyen Heimuli · Rating 4 out of 5]

A real breath of fresh mountain air of a book! Wish the author would go whole 🐖 but I felt they held themselves back a bit in terms of moral clarity. Shame. But what more can you expect from a Yaley 🙄

[Bejinha · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book is actually about politics without traditional politicians.

But the author still believes that some people should rule over the majority.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

https://app.thestorygraph.com/reviews...

[Agnes]

Notes in Scrivener.

[Ada · Rating 5 out of 5]

She's my prof so maybe I'm biased but wow what a brilliant new way to think about politics! Very accessible too.

[Adam]

Interesting idea, still very nascent, and lots of ideas still need to be worked out on how to implement with any amount of genuine power handed to the citizens assembly

[Abbas · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.75/5.0
To replace our current system of politics with a lot based assembly of citizen legislators is a radical idea, but the case for it is well laid out and supported by examples across the world. While I would have liked a deeper exploration of how it would work in different cultures and integrate with the international relation. What is abundantly clear is our current system of elected democracy and career politicians is not working, and it is time for something to change.