Rethinking Democracy: Would Citizens Do a Better Job than Politicians? (Hélène Landemore)

23:23So they thought, why don't we have a citizens assembly on the matter to sort of see where a deliberative public would be and whether they can provide a sensible range of recommendations. And in that assembly, I was one of the members of the governance committee, one of the 15 members of the governance committee in charge of kind of like implementing this assembly and steer it or coordinate it.

23:48Amol Rajan:Make sure it runs well, basically. Yeah. And in order to make sure it runs well, we included, you know, we rotated four members of this assembly on some of our meetings. So to hear from them directly. And so it turns out that the chance had it that this guy, Gerard, was brought in and he was a former army reservist. And the first thing he said when we asked him, so what do you think? He said, well, I have nothing to say. And we paused. We just let it sit for a bit. And of course, he just then launched into a long tirade about everything that was wrong in his view and how he thought that the usual suspects were taking over and speaking over others, including him, because as part of the army, he said, I'm used to being silent.

24:37In France, you know, we call the army the great mute because until I think World War II, maybe even after, I don't remember what I say in the book, but it's very late in the history of our democracy, military people couldn't vote actually. Because they had this duty of reserve, it was called. Oh, I didn't know. Yeah, yeah. So I think he had imbibed this idea that he should just shut up and obey.

25:05Amol Rajan:It turned out he had rather a lot to say. In fact, like a lot of the people who are used to being told to shut up and obey, he had a ton of things on his mind, on his heart. He wanted to speak. And so my book is really for these people. Like the shy, you know, so it's a metaphor I borrowed from G.K. Chesterton, which actually is a British essayist, who defined democracy in this super exciting way. He said, all real democracy is an attempt like that of a jolly hostess to bring the shy people out. And I wonder what he meant by the shy. And I thought, you know what, the most intuitive definition for me, at least, is that it's not just the people who are like genetically shy or like that are just introverts.

25:44It's really so many people who are made shy by their condition, their upbringing, the feeling of a lack of power, the structural constraints really on their agency. And I do relate a lot because I feel like growing up in France, I mean, I explained the book, it's a little autobiographical in small parts. I felt like I was a shy like that, that I was used to just, you know, be quiet and observe. And then I lost that. I guess now I'm quite vocal, you might say.

26:14Amol Rajan:Yeah, I was going to say, haven't you gone from being the shy person to being just as jolly hostess? It took a long time. But it also made me realize that it was at the very least partly created in me rather than something that was really me. You see what I mean? So I think there's a way in which the shy don't have to stay shy. And that if you design democracy the right way, you bring the wallflowers, you know, to the party, to the middle of the dance floor. And you get them to speak and enjoy themselves and contribute to the fun. And the great thing about a jolly hostess is in the end, they invite you, but they sort of recede.

26:49Amol Rajan:And it's actually up to the people to make the party rather than the hostess. So it's really interesting because in this country, assisted dying was meant to be the great social reform of this Labour government, which has a big parliamentary majority. But right now, assisted dying or assisted suicide, as some people call it, opponents in particular call it, is stuck. It's stuck between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. It's stuck because there's a lot of filibustering going on and people sort of delaying it. And the feeling among the reformers is that the longer this impasse, this kind of blockage goes on, the less likely the reform is actually going to happen.

27:25In Ireland, they were stuck with Article 8, which basically criminalized abortion, right? There was no option there. So by 2010, it felt kind of like, you know, antiquated to a lot of the population. It caused a lot of issues and tragedies for a lot of women and families around the country. so you would have thought that the politicians would have done something about it but they were exactly like you described you know for the uk they were stuck in this in this gridlock and nothing could happen so they got convinced by some of my colleagues actually um uh jane souter and david farrell um to try a citizens assembly they first did one on marriage equality but then they did a second one on abortion in 2016 with 99 randomly selected citizens uh plus a chair and they had a full weekend to deliberate about what to do about it.

28:24And they concluded we should liberalize the law and under conditions, of course, allow abortion. And then they passed on the recommendation to parliament, which put it to a referendum. And in June 2018, there was a historic victory for that side of the political divide. that there was 66 % of the Irish people who voted, who voted in favour of liberalising the law. So it sort of helped break the gridlock, took the hot potato of the plate of the hands of the politicians, and everybody was very happy. It's considered one of the most successful users of a citizens' assembly.

29:03Amol Rajan:And it minimised the political damage to people who had to advocate that position in Parliament. Yes, because a lot of them said, you know, my conscience tells me I should support this, but my party line and my constituencies won't let me. So it was tricky, I understand. So in a way, it served as a supplement to the system that really worked very well. Now, that's exactly what we tried to do in France. So Macron thought, you know what, it worked in Ireland, maybe it will work in France. We did one on climate and then we did one on end of life. And in fact, our assembly, the one I was on as a member of the governance committee, concluded that we should indeed liberalize the law on assisted dying, allow some forms of assisted suicide, some form of euthanasia, very constrained, and all of it combined with a policy that had been pushed by the dissenting minority, actually, which was palliative care, massive investment in palliative care.

30:00So to basically minimize as much as possible the temptation to resort to these solutions, right? So if it's not that painful and when you're surrounded by professional care and attention, sometimes it just takes away the temptation or the desire to do it, right? So it seemed like a good compromise between the minority and the majority. You invest massively in palliative care, but you also give the option to those who really can't take it anymore and want to go in a dignified way. And well, it's been, when was it? So it's been three years now. We're still waiting for Parliament to do something about it.

30:39And it's blocked. The law that was, the bill that was discussed has been blocked over and over again by the Senate at this point. So it's exactly like your case. Yeah. I think the difference between Ireland and France is that in Ireland, from the beginning, there was some sort of synergy and trust between Parliament and the Citizens Assembly. The Citizens Assembly sort of process. In France, because Macron, President Macron, is the one who came up with this idea and the parliament perceived citizens' assemblies as a shortcut to their authority, there's been this tension, actually, between the citizens' assemblies we've organised and parliament.

31:20They see it as a threat.

31:21Amol Rajan:That's exactly the argument that is a kind of rhetorical trope in this country when people have talked about citizens' assemblies for a long time, which is people say, we've got a citizens' assembly. It's called the Houses of Parliament. So what's your response to that argument that you don't need citizens' assemblies because we've already got one? Well, if they are a citizens' assembly, they should act like it. This is not what they're doing. So obviously they're not that close to the citizenry. They're too disconnected. So it's not them, the problem. It's a selection mechanism. And I think to me, you know, the same way that elected assemblies slowly displaced the House of Lords and other upper chambers, I think sortition-based assemblies, which are a lot more popular.

32:05Amol Rajan:What base assemblies, sorry? Sortition-based. Sortition, right. Sortition means lottery. Yeah, sure. we should really displace elected assemblies, not necessarily, you know, entirely get rid of them. It could be a sort of new status quo where the citizens assembly finds its place in the ecosystem of the political regime we're in. But I do think that the elected assemblies need to make room and devolve some power.

32:39Amol Rajan:I really hope you're enjoying this conversation with the Yale academic Professor L.N. Landemore. If you are, please subscribe to this podcast on BBC Sounds. That way you will not miss future episodes. And here's the thing. If you do subscribe, just make sure you've got your push notifications turned on. And that way you'll get an alert whenever we publish a new episode and you'll never miss out. And by the way, if you think we're doing valuable, worthwhile work here on Radical with our small team and big ideas and big ambition. go on give us a little five star review and that way we feel nice and happy feel like we're doing good stuff but also it helps other people discover our work and we'd be so grateful anyway enough for me back to l.n landamore

33:23Amol Rajan:one argument to your um one objection to your position might be there are some people who are patently unqualified to participate in decisions about the future of uh society I'm afraid you might say that about some people in our political... Yeah, they're making it very easy to counter that. I mean, I'm telling you. There are some people who... I mean, are you going to have criminals, murderers, violent rapists, so on and so forth, they're going to be disbanded, then they're going to be disallowed. So there are sanctions by which you are not entered into this lottery? Or can anyone? First of all, I'd say the likelihood of a murderer...

33:58I mean, I think... You know, this is kind of like the worst scenario that people bring up. I know, I know. Okay, no, but fair enough, fair enough.

34:03Amol Rajan:What about criminals? What about a serial killer? What about a violent criminal? I mean, hopefully, you know, there's not a murder in Liberty that will show up for something like this. I think it's very far-fetched to imagine that it would be an issue. It certainly is. But if it's a felon who serves their time, I don't see why we should exclude them necessarily. And if it's, you know, like, sure. If they serve their time, yeah. Yeah, if they serve their time. And if it's somebody with morally problematic dimensions, there's only so much you can filter out anyway. So we could, at some point in the future, create some checks on these things.

34:39But right now, given what we're doing and the mechanism we have for accountability, once it's started, we will have guarantors to make sure nobody's being bullied, nobody's being sexually harassed. I mean, look at who's in power in the US. I mean, look at the Epstein-Cast. I thought you were going to say UK. Sorry, I don't want to sound like a populist, but they're making it so easy. And I remember I saw this clip by one of your British actors in this country. Riz Ahmed, have you seen that clip?

35:05Amol Rajan:Riz Ahmed, yeah. No, which clip? He's on some sort of hot Subway takes or something. Subway takes is a brilliant Instagram account. He's making the case for lot-based democracy better than I can, honestly. He said exactly that, that look, what's the worst that can happen? That we're going to get crazy people? Yeah, well, at least they want to go home, you know, compared to the one we have. So I think, OK, it's a joke and they're not like that. And I do think there are a lot of very, very good people. But what the evidence suggests, what the theory suggests at this point is that they're not taken from a sufficiently diverse, you know.

35:43Amol Rajan:Set of backgrounds, yeah. Backgrounds that we can trust them to deliver policies that work. So let me ask you what the evidence shows on two other fronts, if I may. First of all, what does the evidence show about how if you do this by lot, you do actually, and by sortition process, you do actually get cognitive diversity? I know that politicians, trust me, I know, because I've spent a lot of time with them over the last 20 years. I know that in some parts they lack diversity. Other parts of parliament you think there are people with amazing life experiences. What's to say that you put out this lottery for 80 to 100 people and you don't get a bunch, what if you do get a bunch of very left-wing people or very right-wing people or people who are highly educated or people who are not educated at all?

36:25Well, so that's where the selection mechanism is a little bit more complicated Because, you know, there are statistical properties that make it so that if you had a very, very large sample, let's say a thousand, the probability of something like this happening would be quasi null. Right. But with a smaller sample, like the ones we're talking about. There's a chance of abnormal effects. Much more likely to happen. You can have an outlier assembly. So we, because we don't want that to happen, we are going to do what's called stratified random sampling, where you create quotas pretty much. So you define the criteria that you want to see.

37:00You want to make sure that certain groups are represented in proportion to their numbers in the larger populations. For example, I think we'll have a criterion of gender. We'll want maybe a certain number of, given the topic on public services, maybe we'll want to make sure we have the proper ratio of homeowners versus renters. Stuff like that.

37:20Amol Rajan:And you've got people representing teachers, doctors, nurses and so on and so forth. And it's worth saying the book anticipates, as people listening to you now or watching you now will have a clear sense, you anticipate a lot of these objections. How do you anticipate, I think, the most instinctive objection some people will have, not all, but some people, which is all this talk about jury service and citizen assembly. Maybe some people can't be bothered. Oh, yeah. Well, that's a good one. Maybe some people are too busy already. And by the way, you know, I've got children. I've got a job. I've got other things I do.

37:52Amol Rajan:I want to be going to the gym. I want to be kind of making myself look fantastic on Instagram. I don't have time to run your public services. That's what I pay you to do. Okay, but imagine this. You get an invitation in the mail or a phone call that says, hey, do you want to spend five weekends in London, all costs covered? You're paid for it. Like, you know, I don't know what would it be here, but it would be around maybe 85 euros a day. and you get to meet really cool people from all over the UK. You're going to learn about a policy issue or a bunch of policy issues. You're going to meet politicians.

38:34You're going to meet experts. You're going to potentially, you know, earn some kind of diploma at the end that allows you to have job opportunities down the line because you've developed a civic expertise of some kind. So we should reward participation in this thing. So we're trying to basically enjoy duty. you have to go, right? It's your duty.

38:54Amol Rajan:It's a legal obligation. In this, as citizens' assemblies, we don't have the power or the desire to make it mandatory yet, I would say. I think potentially if it turns out to be really a success, maybe we should consider it. But for now, it's off the table. We need to prove a lot more before we go there. But we try to incentivize people. And quite frankly, what I've observed in the two French conventions that I've kind of sat on, and in one case co-govern, is that people come for the money or the curiosity, out of curiosity. Many people come out of curiosity. They think it's a scam. They just want to see how far it goes.

39:32And they stay for the friendship and for the sense of belonging and for the pride and the connection. And it's also healing. People come angry and disaffected with politics and skeptical of everything and nihilistic almost. And they leave, I would say, healed. You know, it is truly transformative. I try to give a sense of that in the book.

39:54Amol Rajan:What about the argument about scale, which is that you're, as a political theorist, as well as now a jolly hostess in some ways, to follow the G.K. Chesterton analogy, you're interested in ancient Athens, and any reader of Plato's Republic will know that it was a smaller place than a modern nation state. And if you have a heterogeneous, ethnically diverse place, very disparate, big country of 65 to 70 million people as in the UK, let alone America, let alone India, 1.4 billion people and an extraordinary range of cultures within that civilization. It's quite hard to operate this kind of thing on the requisite scale, isn't it?

40:39Amol Rajan:And isn't there a challenge if you don't want too small a group because a small group can never represent such a big group? Okay, so two questions in there. One is the scale issue, right? How does that work at scale? Maybe it worked in ancient Athens, which had 80 ,000, you know, citizens or something like that. How would it work, say? For 80 million. Yeah, for 80 millions or even thinking globally for the planet, say. And then there's a second question, which is, why it's too much diversity at that scale anyway? In our modern polities, like how are you going to reconcile different, you know, ethnic preferences, languages, different interests, conflicts of values, etc.

41:25So to the first question, I actually think that lotteries scale much better than elections because, in fact, it's been done already. We've tried, people actually in the UK have tried a pilot for a global assembly in 2021, I believe, called the Global Assembly. You can Google it. they brought 100 people selected at random based on their geographic coordinates and they brought them on zoom to deliberate about climate issues and come up with a recommendation that they then submitted to cop 26 i believe i think that that's it um and um or cop 21 i never remember the numbers but i can't keep up so you had a brazilian interest An Afghan shepherd who couldn't read, you know, Chinese national.

42:15And they talked and they came up with some recommendations that are, you know, of course, at a level of generality that is fit for the for the for the topic. And I remember being struck by the fact that they overcame language barriers, you know, differences in perception of what the problems were, to come up with one recommendation that I thought was very striking because it's the same one that came out of the Citizens Convention in France, which was recognizing at the international level a crime of ecocide. So a crime of ecocide is murder of the environment. so when Exxon spills in some gulf and kills all the fauna and you know the plants they need to be punished and right now we don't have a crime that recognizes sort of a legal category that allows them to be punished right and the French Citizens Convention on Climate came up with the same idea Macron said it's not possible to do it at the national level So I'm vetoing it because if only the French do it, it's going to overly penalize French corporations while American corporations, Chinese corporations get away with polluting for free.

43:35And it's not a great solution. It's just it's a collective action problem. We need to solve it at the global level. So I think it's been done at scale. And if you think about it, it's a lot more it's a lot less costly as well, because if we were to run elections at the global level, What would happen? Only very visible people, the Trumps of this world, you know, the billionaires in the Gulf countries. And so you wouldn't be the people you want getting the attention and winning the elections. You'd end up with a sample that's even less representative of the humankind than our elected officials are representative of people at the national level.

44:17So the scale issue for me, it's actually the opposite. The conclusion is vastly in favor of random selection. Also because contrary to popular belief, past a couple of millions, it's enough to have a thousand people to get a representative sample. I don't fully understand this, but it's another interesting sort of mathematical property that it doesn't really matter. A thousand people to represent the planet, it's almost as good as a thousand people to represent Athenians or the French or the British. And as Ms.

44:54Amol Rajan:Ahmed might say, what's the worst that could happen? So then there's a question of cultural diversity, value, conflict, etc. So there I think that I could give you many theories, but we can just look at what happened. It was done, these assemblies were run in Ireland, which is pretty homogenous in fairness. But now they've been run in France, which is not homogenous anymore. We're very multicultural countries with about 30 % of the population that's like first or second or third generation immigrants. So, I mean, I don't know how you calculate. So inevitably, when we selected 150 the first time and 185 the second time, you had people from all kinds of backgrounds in there.

45:37And we are not allowed in France to select based on race because it's a category that has been banned from our constitution. So it's not a word that's even... It took me a while to say the word race in English because it's almost a slur in French. So we can't use that category, but the virtues of Lot make it so that you will have black and brown people and probably wouldn't have many Asian people. And of course you get Muslims and Jewish people and Buddhist and franc-maçon, and you get a range of views that are very, very...

46:13Amol Rajan:What's the last one, Buddhist and franc? Franc-maçon. It's people who are kind of like atheists, but... Yes, yes, yes, yes, yeah, yeah. It's not really a religion, but it's another form of ideological view of the world. I'm very struck that you were at pains to point out that you're not against politicians as individuals. You're not here to kind of denigrate them. And you're wary of sounding like a populist. And I imagine there are lots of populists to advance positions that you perhaps disagree with. Isn't there a danger in what you're trying to do that you do fuel anti-elite feeling and antipathy towards the current political class?

46:49Amol Rajan:And maybe that's just the practicalities, maybe that's the trade-off. But you know why I ask you that? Because I'm struck by how many people I meet in politics, as in actual politicians, who are highly decent, highly committed people, who frankly could get paid more elsewhere, as you say, in the private sector, who are basically just overwhelmed by the system. They're just not able. They pull a lever, even if they become cabinet. I mean, I know people in the British cabinet. I know people who served in the British cabinet under various political guises. And these are highly decent, highly intelligent people who try to make a difference.

47:16Amol Rajan:They just can't. And there is one response, which is to say, we need these people desperately and we need to do everything we can to support them and strengthen the current system rather than augment it in the way that you are suggesting. So what do you say to the objection to your position, which is that what you're trying to do is going to make that feeling of anti-politics and low trust even worse? Well, that's why I try to be to focus on the positive message in the book. I don't want to be fueling anti-parliamentarism and violence against the political class in any way. That's really not my goal.

47:53I'm here more to hold a mirror as well to this political class and ask them in all honesty, do you think that given everything I say and the empirical evidence, you are in a position to do a good enough job? Because I think the problem is structural. It's not a problem of personality. It's not a problem of choosing the better people or, you know, it's truly systems.

48:16Amol Rajan:Yeah, it's a system. And I think that if they acknowledge that, they should want to modify or help modify it, even if that means losing power. And I mean, that's asking a lot, I realize. But at the same time, power is not owed to anyone, right? In particular, I mean, it's owed to all of us. and the reaction I see oftentimes is a very corporatist one which is well I'm smart I was elected I own this place and the most egregious thing I've seen is this right-wing politician who was paired with me on a panel where I'm in my pitch for Politics Without Politicians they said ordinary people do not belong in parliament and I'm like well it's supposed to be the house of the people what are you talking about?

49:02Amol Rajan:You know, it's so there's this country house of the commons, literally common people. Yeah, but they're not common in, you know, in any way, it turns out. So there's this tension. And I think if they saw it and if they're good people and they are, they should be able to see there's a problem. And that at the very least, we need to create a space. So it's, you know, there's a radical path in my book, but there's also a reformist path. So politics without politicians can be a completely different system where elected politicians do not play the role they're playing now and they kind of fade out.

49:35You don't even have parties, potentially, at least of the classic established kind. But then there's the other reformist path, which is politics without politicians within the existing system. So they're just spaces for ordinary citizens.

49:51Amol Rajan:A few weeks ago, the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, Professor Jonathan Haidt from New York University, I think, was sat where you are. And he's one of the world's most influential public intellectuals. And he's really now part of a global movement, particularly around smartphone free childhoods and limiting access to screens and social media for young people. You're a political theorist. You're a very distinguished academic with a remarkable pedigree at America's top universities. Are you in the process of becoming something more than that, as someone who wants to start a kind of global movement for the restoration or revival of democracy?

50:32I think that book is probably the tipping point indeed, because before I was trying to stay at, you know, very sober academic.

50:40Amol Rajan:But what are you tipping towards? What are you trying to do? I'm trying to show it can be done, not in this somewhat artisanal way that we've been doing it for a while now. It's been 20 years, right? We've started, I mean, this community of people who believe in sortition started in, you could say, in 2004 with the first Canadian experiment on electoral reform, the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform in Canada. and we've had 20 years of experiments usually it's relatively small groups of you know 50 people and and they're usually advisory and don't have that much of an impact i mean except the you know irish examples it's usually still confidential right and i think we're at the phase where we need to be more ambitious because the threats are accelerating.

51:36AI is, you know, being deployed without any public input almost. Wars are being waged without any public input or even public justification, actually. So I think it's time to put the, you know, the foot on the pedal and accelerate and try to be a little bit more ambitious. So I would like to see more experiments with larger assemblies, with more power. And I can tell you that I think this is what's happening because you can sense the pushback.

52:07Amol Rajan:You're very kindly going to stick around and answer some of the many, many questions that we've got from our listeners. But for now, can I just say with all sincerity that whether you believe in what you're advocating or not is an incredibly important and I think timely argument. And I really recommend politics without politicians and the case for citizen rule. Hélène L 'Homme, thank you so much for coming in and joining us on Radical. Thank you, Amol.

52:34Amol Rajan:I'm going to confess something, which is not really the thing that podcast hosts are meant to do. They're meant to sound like they know everything about everything, especially if they host quizzes about knowledge. But I'm going to confess something to you, which is that I didn't know a huge amount about Hélène Landemore's work before this episode, before doing the reading for this episode. But when our magnificent team on Radicals, so Lewis Vickers and Anna Budd, get together and they say there is someone you really, really want to engage with and we should get her on. I take what they say seriously because I trust their judgment.

53:05Amol Rajan:And once again, they have been proven absolutely right because I thought Hélène was one of the most interesting thinkers about politics I've come across. I think she's thought more deeply about where politics has gone wrong and she's thought more deeply about how it could be restored to its radical roots. And there was something, wasn't there, which was refreshingly radical about her. Radical both in the sense of really ripping up and disrupting the way things are done right now, saying to politicians, we know you took this job because you want power, we're going to take that power away from you.

53:35Amol Rajan:But also radical in that original sense, which inspired us to set up this podcast and call it radical, which is the etymology of the word radical, the fact that it comes from the Latin word for root, and that idea of taking democracy back to its Athenian roots, restoring it to the people by bringing it closer to them. I loved her little detour through GK Chesterton and this idea of the jolly hostess whose job it is to bring the shy people out. And this idea that latent within our public, the kind of hidden underneath the voters, the kind of the great mass of the people, is a desperate desire to be involved and to make things better.

54:10Amol Rajan:And, you know, I did ask her about the evidence for that. And when she said that the evidence from around the world is, A, that there isn't actually as much apathy as people say, and B, when people get involved and you can make it exciting by paying them a bit or making it enticing and rewarding them, But when they get involved, they feel a sense of connection and belonging and membership and a sense of healing because they come for the curiosity or maybe the money and they stay for the friendship. I thought that was really, really powerful. I should say there's plenty more of that in her book, which is absolutely terrific.

54:44Amol Rajan:That is it for now. But please do make sure you check back here on Monday. You're going to hear Helen answering your radical questions. We got some fantastic questions in, actually. some really unusual ones and some ones that suggested that people have put a lot of thought into this subject and she's given some great, great answers so she's going to be answering your Radical questions in our bonus Q &A and by the way, to make sure you don't miss future episodes please do hit subscribe on BBC Sounds that way you will get an alert every time we release a new episode and your life will just get that incrementally better as Radical slips into your consciousness and tries to explain how you can win the future We didn't really need that, did we?

55:24Amol Rajan:Anyway, speak to you soon. Bye. Hello, I'm Johnny Diamond, and I'm the presenter of the Radio 4 series How Did We Get Here? Israel and the Palestinians. We explore the complicated backstory of that Middle East conflict as the region endures another wider war. Through conversations with experts with a variety of perspectives, we travel back through the centuries to examine the history of the land that's now so contested between Arabs and Israelis. And we try and understand the past that's brought us to such a present. How did we get here? Israel and the Palestinians listen on BBC Sounds. It's 2009 and we're in the German mountains.

56:10Amol Rajan:A man straps himself into a car on the world's most dangerous racetrack. He whispers to himself, It's time to put my balls on the dashboard. As he starts the engine. In 15 minutes, he's in an ambulance, unconscious. In 15 years, he's a billionaire. This is Toto Wolff, Formula One's most powerful team boss and the breakout star of Drive to Survive. This week on Good, Bad, Billionaire, how Toto Wolff made his billions. Listen wherever you get your BBC podcasts.