Radical democracy via random selection

I wrote the following for AusDoc in answer to their question on the number one change I would propose. It summarises my ideas on why we need more member involvement and how this might be achieved, extending beyond existing College Faculty roles and the GP Advocate Network to ensure we are hearing from the full spectrum of membership wisdom and experience.

AusDoc statement (submitted 5/8/26)

The main change I believe we need is a radically more democratic College to enable us to involve members directly in policy decisions. This would allow the College to speak with a stronger and more courageous voice on behalf of our members and also on behalf of our patients.

We need to acknowledge that no issue is a single issue anymore. We are in an “Everything everywhere, all at once” moment. For instance, we won’t be able to achieve environment or climate goals if Australia becomes a political oligarchy, if we become embroiled in more wars, if we tolerate ongoing inaction around first nations rights, or if we ignore the very real risk of successful attacks on women’s health and rights.

I believe that addressing these and other intertwined issues requires the College to bring more members on board at a direct policy level. And then to use our combined voice to make alliances and advocate loudly on those issues on which we can have the most impact.

This is not a new idea within the College, and several forms of increased member involvement have been proposed. My suggestion is that we bring on board the commitment and skills of non-office-holding GP members via a randomly selected council with the ability to add to Board agendas and initiate non-binding member polls on key issues, providing the Board with a stronger member voice.

This is also not a new idea out in the wider world and has been used, for example, in the form of a Citizen’s Assembly in Ireland to help the country move towards a referendum on abortion. Random selection (or sortition) has the effect of freeing members of a decision-making group from the need to make election promises they may be unable to keep, reduces the risk of lobbying or partisanship, and promotes more active engagement in politics. Group composition is checked to ensure it reflects the composition of the membership, much like selecting study populations for research. Such groups are usually supported by a small research and support secretariat. Time demands on members are variable but need not be more than a few hours per month, and various methods of achieving a consensus or majority opinion have been used.

While I definitely think this is an idea worth progressing, even if elected my role as president would be quite constrained. Although elected by members (around 20% of us actually vote) the president is subject to oversight by the Board (a mix of directly elected and appointed members). The role description states that the president will “serve as the principal public representative and spokesperson of the RACGP in line with Board-approved policy and strategy.”

So, any election promise I make here is subject to my being able to convince the Board it is a good idea. A randomly selected member council might change that dynamic considerably – possibly by helping the Board reject radical ideas like this but possibly by opening space for stronger advocacy and action.