Sortition, or the selection of officials by lot, has been widely associated with the democratic institutions of ancient Athens. However, its longest continuous political application was in Imperial China, where it played a significant role in bureaucratic appointments from 1594 until the fall of the Qing Dynasty in 1911. Unlike in Athens, where sortition was designed to distribute power evenly among citizens, the Chinese system functioned within a hierarchical, meritocratic state, selecting officials from among those who had already passed the rigorous Imperial Examinations. This method was introduced to combat corruption, ensure fairness in appointments, and prevent the formation of entrenched patronage networks.

This essay will examine the function and eventual decline of sortition in China, and assess its advantages and limitations, and then compare it with the Athenian model as discussed in Alan Bickley’s analysis.

The use of sortition in China can be traced to occasional bureaucratic practices during the Yuan (1279–1368) and early Ming (1368–1644) dynasties. However, it was not a systematic method of appointment until the late sixteenth century. Prior to this, the Chinese state relied primarily on the Imperial Examination System (科举, kējǔ), which selected officials based on literary, administrative, and philosophical competence. This system was a cornerstone of Confucian governance, ensuring that appointments were made on the basis of merit rather than birth.

While the examination system was designed to prevent hereditary aristocracy, it did not eliminate corruption. Powerful court officials could manipulate appointments, granting positions to favourites rather than the most qualified candidates. To address this, Sun Peiyang (孫丕揚, 1532–1614), as Minister of Personnel, introduced sortition in 1594. His reforms were aimed at curbing nepotism and ensuring that high-ranking civil servants were appointed impartially. For over three centuries, sortition played a critical role in the assignment of administrative posts across the vast Chinese empire.

Unlike in Athens, where sortition was a mechanism for ensuring democratic participation, in China it was a method for distributing power among a pre-selected elite. The process was not open to all citizens, but only to those who had passed the Imperial Examinations, ensuring a baseline level of competence.

The process of appointment by lot occurred in multiple stages:

1. Initial Qualification Through Examination:
   Candidates first had to pass the highly competitive Imperial Examinations. These tests, which assessed knowledge of Confucian classics, administrative skills, and literary ability, were the primary gateway to government service. Only a small percentage of candidates succeeded in advancing to the level where they could be considered for public office.
2. Sortition for Assignments:
   Once candidates were deemed qualified, their names were written on bamboo slips and placed in a large container. The names were then drawn at random, determining where each candidate would be stationed. This system was intended to prevent favouritism and ensure that officials were assigned fairly across different regions.
3. Public Ceremony and Legitimisation:
   The drawing of lots was conducted publicly, often in front of the Gate of Heavenly Peace (天安门, Tiān’ānmén). This reinforced the perception that appointments were impartial and aligned with the Mandate of Heaven (天命, tiānmìng), a Confucian principle that suggested the ruler’s legitimacy came from divine will. Officials were expected to accept their assignments as decreed by fate.
4. Rotation and Accountability:
   Once assigned, officials were required to serve in regions outside their native province, preventing the formation of local power bases. They were regularly rotated to different positions, limiting opportunities for entrenched corruption.

This process differed significantly from Athenian sortition, which applied to a much broader section of the population and was not linked to a competitive meritocratic system.

The integration of sortition into the Chinese bureaucracy was justified on both practical and ideological grounds.

One of the primary motivations for introducing sortition was to curb corruption and nepotism. By removing direct human influence over appointments, the system reduced opportunities for bribery and favouritism.

China’s vast territory and diverse regions required a fair distribution of administrators. Sortition helped prevent regional bias by ensuring that officials were randomly assigned across different provinces.

Sortition was also framed within Confucian ideals of governance. The Confucian state was based on harmony, impartiality, and moral integrity. By using chance to determine appointments, officials and the public were encouraged to accept the legitimacy of the process, seeing it as part of the cosmic order.

This is a key distinction from Athenian democracy, where sortition was justified as a means of preventing political monopolisation and ensuring mass participation, rather than reinforcing hierarchical stability.

Despite its advantages, sortition faced significant opposition from those who argued that it compromised efficiency and meritocracy.

Critics, such as the influential statesman Yu Shenxing (于慎行, 1545–1608), argued that while sortition prevented favouritism, it also resulted in mismatched appointments. An official with expertise in one area might be assigned to a completely unrelated post, reducing overall

Although sortition was designed to prevent corruption, some officials manipulated the system by rigging the drawing process. Accusations of bribery and favoritism continued, undermining the credibility of the method.

China was a vast and linguistically diverse empire. Sortition did not always account for regional differences, sometimes assigning officials to areas where they struggled to communicate or understand local customs.

These criticisms parallel concerns raised against Athenian sortition, where some argued that randomly selected citizens might be unfit for complex roles, though in Athens this was mitigated by dokimasia (pre-office scrutiny) and euthynai (post-office accountability).

There are several important contrasts between the Chinese and Athenian models:

1. Who Was Eligible?
   • Athenian Sortition: Open to all eligible male citizens. No prior qualification was required.
   • Chinese Sortition: Restricted to those who had passed the Imperial Examinations, ensuring intellectual competence.
2. Purpose and Justification
   • Athens: Designed to distribute power evenly and prevent an elite political class from dominating government.
   • China: Intended to maintain meritocratic governance while eliminating favoritism and corruption.
3. Role of the Lottery
   • Athens: Sortition was used to select decision-makers (e.g., members of the Boule and magistrates).
   • China: Sortition was used to assign officials to administrative positions, not to determine policy.
4. Accountability Measures
   • Athens: Officials were subject to pre-office vetting (dokimasia) and post-office audits (euthynai).
   • China: Officials were rotated between positions to prevent long-term corruption but did not undergo pre-selection scrutiny beyond examinations.
5. Longevity of the System
   • Athens: The democratic sortition system lasted for approximately two centuries (5th–4th century BC).
   • China: The bureaucratic sortition system endured for over three centuries (1594–1911).

Sortition was gradually phased out with the modernisation of China’s bureaucracy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The fall of the Qing Dynasty in 1911 led to the adoption of Western-style bureaucratic structures, where meritocratic examinations alone were supposed to determine appointments. This being said, as in the West, bureaucracy soon became at least as corrupt and inefficient as in the worst times of the old imperial system, and more so than when sortition was in use.

As in Athens, sortition was ultimately abandoned due to concerns about competence and effectiveness. However, unlike in Athens—where democracy was replaced by oligarchy and conquest—China’s transition was part of a broader movement towards modern state-building. As said, this was not a transition without problems of its own.

The use of sortition in China, then, provides a contrast to the democratic sortition of Athens. While both systems sought to prevent corruption and distribute power, the Chinese model operated, as said, within a hierarchical state, whereas the Athenian model was part of a radical democratic experiment. Despite criticisms, the Chinese system endured for over three centuries, demonstrating that random selection can function effectively within structured bureaucracies.

Primary Sources

• Gu, Yanwu. Essays on Governance in Late Ming China. Nanjing: Jiangsu Publishing, 1834.
• Shen, Sun. Records of Personnel Appointments (《吏部志》). Beijing: Ming Dynasty Archives, 1594.
• Sun, Hong. Administrative Manuals of the Qing (《清朝政务手册》). Beijing: Imperial Court Press, 1702.
• Water Margin (水浒传). Attributed to Shi Nai’an (施耐庵). 14th century.

Secondary Sources

• Goodrich, Luther Carrington, and Chao-ying Fang. Dictionary of Ming Biography, 1368–1644. New York: Columbia University Press, 1976.
• Hansen, Mogens Herman. The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes: Structure, Principles, and Ideology. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.
• Landemore, Hélène. Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2020.
• Manin, Bernard. The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
• Ober, Josiah. Democracy and Knowledge: Innovation and Learning in Classical Athens. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.
• Pomeranz, Kenneth. The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.
• Shen, Yuan. Sortition and Bureaucracy in Imperial China. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997.
• Van Reybrouck, David. Against Elections: The Case for Democracy. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2016.
• Will, Pierre-Etienne. Bureaucratic Selection and the Role of Chance in Imperial China. London: Cambridge University Press, 2020.