Introduction

The world is not estranged to democratic processes. The democratic systems in countries have flourished as the leading governments for several decades, if not centuries in some cases. Deliberation in and of itself is not a new concept. People have deliberated a variety of topics throughout history. Thinking and discussing, then more thinking and so on. However, governments have not usually incorporated this kind of process in our democratic system. Participatory democracy has been a leading system in most developed nations, which entails votes, but not necessarily informed choices from all parties involved. Incorporating deliberative democracy in governments would allow the people that are voting from all walks of life to discuss topics and create resolutions in groups. Broader discussion allows more meaningful resolutions that can help advance public policy. In cases like these, it can help uncover people’s motives and essentially why they believe what they do, which becomes useful when introducing a wide array of perspectives (Boswell et al., 2022). By introducing a more unbiased perspective on the issues at hand, public opinion from a broader standpoint can be gained.

Incorporating deliberative processes in a government system can be considered quite complex when assessing general requirements. However, broadly speaking, the requirements themselves are mostly guidelines to assure that the process is actually set in place. A representative deliberative process can be defined as a broad group of people (representative to the population) that essentially “deliberates” a topic(s), and can eventually draw a conclusion to recommend to a governing body. The OECD wrote a paper on the benefits of deliberative democracy over the standard democratic system that has been widely institutionalized. One of the main benefits discussed is that of public judgment versus public opinion. Public opinion can be shaped through public participation, which is incorporated in processes like voting. However, this can become quite adversarial and not necessarily a way to find solutions. Instead, public judgment allows actual discussions with the representative population in a space crafted for learning and deliberation. Additionally, it allows a closer bond between the people and their government. The divide between the government's systems and their people can be quite difficult to navigate due to a lack of trust. These systems can help ease a connection between them due to the influence that the people themselves have in resolutions that are recommended as public policy (OECD, 2021). There are a variety of opinions on the different ways to widely institutionalize deliberative democratic processes. However, the focus of this paper is to discuss a more specific deliberative process itself. Mini publics can be considered one of the ways that this process is becoming institutionalized.

Introducing mini publics to the people is one of the ways that deliberative democracy has been instituted in a variety of countries. It is considered to be a class of institutions that directly engages with citizens to promote democratic deliberation, and is sometimes institutionalized into the democratic decision-making process (OECD, 2021). Citizen engagement has started to become looked at in this particular context. As more and more mini publics are successfully being implemented, inspiration is drawn. From simple citizen engagement with things like town hall or stakeholder meetings, inspiration is drawn for broader representative processes. When defining exactly what a mini public is, it can be difficult to provide a singular definition. There are more restrictive to expansive definitions of this process. The expansive definition of a mini public would most likely include things like community policing or participatory budgeting (of which, the more restrictive definitions would not even be considered as such). Instead, they would consider deliberative polls as one of the only definitions of a mini public. This involves a random (but representative) selection of 250-500 citizens that is brought together to hear from experts and deliberate on a variety of topics. Many of which will be used to recommend policy actions. In fact, these kinds of mini publics are what can be considered the most grandiose. Deliberative polls are probably the most effective form of mini public that is being used in several different countries. Several examples and their impacts will be provided below.

Citizens’ Assembly on Democracy and Germany’s role in the world in 2019

The first example of a successfully implemented mini public is the Citizens’ Assembly on Democracy and Germany’s Role in the World in 2019.  Initially inspired by the assembly in Ireland, this can be considered the first sortition-based citizens’ assembly at the federal level and was made possible by Mehr Demokratie e.V., (an NGO associated with the promotion of direct democracy) the Schöpflin Foundation, and a variety of partner organizations, with the donation of 1.5 million euros. It was further implemented by IFOK and the Nexus Institute, a consulting group and a think tank, respectively. The reason this assembly was created in the first place was to strengthen and further develop democracy in Germany with direct connection to the political sphere. It is noted that trust in the government in developed countries is decreasing. Only around two-thirds of German citizens were able to state that democracy was the best system. The number drops to below half in East Germany, noting clear political and regional differences. There is also a surprising drop in democratic confidence amongst young people, so how can that dissatisfaction be mended? In this particular case, the federal government took up the responsibility to involve a deliberative process in order to receive proposals from its citizens. The more complete focus of this mini public was “whether and in what form our proven parliamentary representative democracy can be supplemented by further elements of citizen participation and direct democracy” (Bürgerrat Demokratie, 2021).

There are some general guidelines that had to be implemented in order to ensure a fair and representative federal process. The first standard set in place is that of sortition, which is essentially random selection. In Germany’s case, the 98 existing municipalities were contacted and asked to provide addresses that were randomly compiled. It was emphasized that all regions and municipalities were to be represented in this process and that the people that were chosen represented an accurate picture of Germany’s make-up (gender, migration background, age, education, etc.) Communities within the municipalities were drawn at random and were asked to draw a random sample of their own citizens in order to gain perspective on the make-up of those communities. The second standard set in place was the agenda, or the lack of a clear agenda. The process was meant to be open-ended, therefore, the citizens were free to create it themselves. The only restriction was that it had to include an aspect of the democratic process since this citizens’ assembly was meant to deliberate democracy. Another procedural standard set in place includes Parliamentary involvement. Usually with citizen participatory processes, parliamentary involvement is nonexistent (Participedia). In this case, Parliamentarians were directly involved in discussions with citizens. In addition, they were able to provide expert information on voting and democratic processes that many may not have been aware of previously, providing a reliable resource. Through these exchanges, some mutual trust was also expected to grow between the Parliament and its citizens.

With regard to the assembly itself, the process was phased and structured extensively to ensure an ordered system was set in place. Firstly, regional conferences were held for the citizens in order to prepare for the deliberation at the federal level. In these initial meetings, the citizens set the agenda and questions are asked in order to become more thorough at the national level assemblies. After the regional conferences, 160 citizens participated in the national assembly across two weekends. During this time, German citizens drew up proposals for political reform with regard to strengthening democracy. Simultaneously, a variety of experts and organizers gave their expert opinions on related topics like direct democracy and lobbyism. It is important to note that there was also an advisory board - representing civil society organizers - present during the entire process. They essentially supported the process and political implementation while simultaneously ensuring neutrality in the procedure. 

In the end, the discussions led to 22 proposals or recommendations on democratic action. The final results, including votes, can be found in the Citizens’ Report which was released on Germany’s “Day of Democracy” celebrated in Berlin. The report was released and handed over to the politicians as well as the people. Ideally, the recommendations (after being handed over to the politicians), were reviewed and implemented. Due to the vast amount of recommendations made, there is no clear data on how many of them were implemented or to what extent. One of the proposals made, however, was to institutionalize citizens’ assemblies. This proves the progress that this system made at the federal level for the citizens that participated and for more to come. Publicity was also implemented in the process as a way to promote citizen assemblies at the federal level. The intense public relations work was fully implemented through the transparency of the process itself. The individual phases of the process were published online and a documentary was made.

While this mini public ran smoothly due to the well-thought out phases and processes, it did not come without criticism. Some of the citizens claimed that people with higher education and a positive (as well as knowing) attitude towards citizen participation were overrepresented in the process, with certain citizen groups being left behind. There were also some complaints regarding timing. Participants claimed that there was not enough time to discuss many of the topics in detail due to the time constraints (only two weekends of deliberation) and many things had to be brushed over due to this limit. Therefore, the most constructive criticism that was received towards the citizens’ assembly involved diversifying the citizen involvement by actively incorporating people with more varying socio-economic backgrounds, as well as allocating more time for this assembly to include more weekends (The Citizens’ Convention on UK Democracy). Overall, this process was considered a success due to the sheer implementation of this being the first citizens’ assembly at the federal level.

Citizens Convention for Climate in 2019

France held the first-ever democracy experiment that held actual power. To this day, it is considered the largest and most extensive climate assembly. The Citizens Convention for Climate in 2019, was a government-mandated (more specifically, by President Macron) convention to discuss climate. The topic set in place for this assembly was clear: how France would reduce carbon emissions 40% from 1990 by 2030, in the spirit of social justice. Even though this came at a time that would be considered a climate emergency, the main reason this convention was held was in response to the Yellow Vest movement against the fuel tax. What is coined as the Mouvement des gilets jaunes, or the Yellow Vest protests, is a social populist movement of weekly protests that have been held in France since 2018. The movement was sparked by raising fuel prices and economic inequality that some of the citizens had discussed were unfair to the middle class (Giraudet et al., 2022). This rising movement ended up becoming the spark that fueled President Macron to implement the Citizens Convention for Climate in 2019.

For this mini public, 150 citizens were selected randomly (through sortition) to represent the diversifying French population. The details of the actual selection were not as detailed as the German Citizens’ Assembly, but there appeared to be no complaints on it. With a larger budget of around 4 million euros, the Conseil Economique Social et Environmental or CESE (The Economic, Social, and Environmental Council) ran the convention. The budget also allocated money towards the citizens participating in the process. The 150 people  received jury compensation benefits (around 86 euros per day) and several other benefits for inconveniences over seven weekends from the beginning of October 2019 to the beginning of April 2020 (some of which were delayed due to COVID-19). Things like childcare were compensated to allow for single parents to take part in the conventions. The objective of the Convention was to come to a decisive and conclusive directive to answer the carbon emissions reduction issue. This was submitted directly to a referendum or a vote in Parliament for possible implementation. In total, the conventional approved 149 proposals, of which President Macron promised to implement 146 of them. The governance committee, similarly to the advisory board in Germany, neutrally oversaw the process and provided experts and professionals in their respective fields.

The 150 citizens were split up into randomized groups of 30 people covering five themes: se deplacer (transportation), se nourrir (food), consommer (consumption), travailler et produire (work and production), and se loger (housing). People were not able to choose their preferred theme or interest, since that could introduce bias in the process. It was made clear early in the planning process that the participants of the convention would essentially be left to their own devices to discuss the themed topics and come up with resolutions in a self-facilitated and self-recorded environment. This appears to be a deliberate method in resolution-building. In a more general sense, they did have two consultancy firms - Missions Publiques and Res Public Conseil - designing and moderating the process as a whole. In addition, there were a few support groups set in place to successfully implement the conventional group of 14 people known as groupe d'appui, which was a support group formed by the Governance Committee to advise the participants in exploring the different themes more, with regard to climate (Convention Citoyenne Pour Le Climat). A Public Law Committee is formed of two experts in public law who purposefully guided citizens in their deliberation when discussing their proposals and the referendum.

Despite the well thought out plans involving Parliament and the Governance Committee, many believe this mini-public created an even more strained relationship between the Parliamentarians and the citizens. Many of the citizens at the convention felt that their initiatives weren’t being passed. While the Convention itself can be labeled a success, the act of taking initiative and enacting proposals is lacking, and therefore, the lack of trust is triggered.

The Citizens Convention on UK Democracy (2019)

The UK held a separate convention to discuss their own democracy and emerging issues. It is a known statistical fact among the English that the citizens in the UK are losing faith in democracy (about 72% said that the government system needed a lot of work and 63% think their system is rigged to benefit the wealthy). Being able to review and discuss democratic issues with a wide array of citizens could prove to be beneficial in this particular case. As opposed to the other two cases that had minor direct involvement with the government, in this Convention, building the groundwork included involving and committing to elections manifestos and counts on full support from party leaders of the four UK-wide political parties (Allen et al. 9). There were three elements involved in the UK Convention. The first element is a UK-wide National Conversation, which includes mass active engagement on the challenges facing UK Democracy and how they should be handled. Simultaneous to the national conversation is the thematic assemblies which involve assemblies considering what topics and solutions to focus on, as well as make recommendations for possible reforms (Citizens’ Convention on UK Democracy). At the peak is the UK Citizens’ Summit, which serves to ratify the given recommendations and resolutions from the topics discussed. It also serves as a conflict resolution resource to answer any questions and mediate.

The process itself for the UK Convention was not as controlled as the Assembly in Germany or the other Convention in France. While still being officiated and highly approved politically, the convention began (along with the agreement of the government) with a broad agenda. The focus is meant to involve processing a particular issue and creating a resolution that can be agreed upon or compromised, rather than things that can be campaigned on. The political endgame of this involves the final recommendations going to Parliament and they will have that final say on what to legislate upon (Redman, 2021). However, while there were not many restrictions set in place for the process itself, plenty of considerations at play that restricted several kinds of discussions. Some of them are obvious, like choosing resolutions that work within a framework that can be accepted by parliament, frame topics in ways that allow for open interpretation and exploration, or have issues that contain sufficient depth. Other considerations are more specific, like the convention itself must be free from political interference (yes, even considering that the process itself is fully endorsed by all the country’s parties). Even more specific are all of the rules of issues for negotiation, which must fit within the framework of one of the five. In more specific form, the Citizens’ Convention will only be strictly focusing on the structure of the democratic system itself, as opposed to common thematic policy discussion.

The order of things was constructed strategically to align with the general election. The order itself was created in a variety of steps. The very first step was the 2019 General Election and afterwards is when the government created the commission and a three part independent citizens’ convention. The report with the resolutions was then sent to The Commission, who met and reported it to Parliament and the HM Government.

Possibilities and Limitations

Relatively little evidence suggests that most mini publics have had any impact in the sense of affecting public policy. Since it is still relatively new, the impact cannot be fully encapsulated, so it is more minute now. Through the theory of motivated reasoning, we can decipher some of the issues that could be associated with deliberative democracy. Motivated reasoning by itself is not negatively associated with deliberative democracy or mini publics, specifically. Rather, it explains why certain biases exist within us (and always will). In other words, deliberating will not stop a human from being guided by some form of self-interest (Moscrop, 2020). Considering that one of the main points of mini publics and deliberation as a whole is to disentangle the biases that exist around us, the theory of motivated reasoning would undermine and override that no matter what.

When it comes specifically to DDIs (Digital Democratic Innovations), many have raised concerns about the value of online deliberation and some have even expressed worries that digitizing deliberative democracy would undermine the benefits deliberation is supposed to bring. Motivated reasoning implies that even after being exposed to the same arguments, people might still arrive at different conclusions and have a different view. Through the theory of motivated reasoning, we can decipher some of the issues that could be associated with deliberative democracy. 

The Involvement of Technology

The ICT platform Decidim is a platform that uses IT technology to rebuild the deliberation and discussion platform. Proposals are first approved by a large number of citizens through deliberation on a digital platform and are then put before the local council. The first phase of the Decidim platform trial in Barcelona took place between 2016 and 2019. It saw roughly 40,000 citizens participate, which resulted in about 1,500 policy proposals. The city also introduced “participatory budgeting.” About 3-5% of the city’s budget is determined through citizen discussion. In Japan, some municipalities are experimenting with Decidim, including the Shibuya Ward (Martí, 2021). What is being referred to as the Shibuya Mama-Chari Project, Decidim is being used in a variety of ways. The Shibuya Mama-Chari Project intends to gain public opinion on the use of bicycles in urban areas (Uno, 2022). The platform allows that kind of integration to take place and can open up the accessibility of these kinds of discussions to the public. According to the research article, Enhancing Deliberation with Digital Democratic Innovations, “when it comes specifically to DDIs, many have raised concerns about the value of online deliberation and some have even expressed worries that digitizing deliberative democracy would undermine the benefits deliberation is supposed to bring” (Mikhaylovskaya, 2024).

Another argument related to the benefits of deliberation via digital means has to do with transparency and access to information. Transparency, alongside deliberation, is one of the key democratic principles. It implies a positive relationship between decision-makers and citizens, meaning that decision-makers have access to citizens’ input, while citizens in return possess enough information to form opinions about political processes (Mikhaylovskaya, 2024). Alongside that, they have the power to - despite all its benefits and the fact that some level of transparency is essential for building trust between deliberative citizens and decision-makers - do something that can have adverse effects. There is a legitimate concern over the privacy and security of the users due to possible breaches in security of personal data. Since the innovative idea of deliberation through DDI’s involves engaging citizens with diverse backgrounds and perspectives, it is unavoidable that some personal information from participants will be required.

Conclusion

In a world that continues to become more polarized by the people and their own actions, discussion is of utmost importance. People’s biases get in the way of (literal) interaction between people with differing perspectives and viewpoints. What is known is that when people stick to their own biases to only prove their own perspectives, the polarization persists, if not worsens. With meaningful deliberation, not simply discussion, the people are forced into a space that makes them listen to people that will not agree with them. More importantly, they will be able to hear the “why” and the “how” as to why other people think the way they do. The general public has still not been able to see the widespread effects of deliberative democracy due to its scarcity in political discussion. But based on what has been seen with the examples above, people have been able to broaden their opinions about the democratic state of their own countries and issues like climate change. Many other countries have followed, with discussions that cover a wide array of important issues.

As mentioned above, there has not been particularly positive effects that can be portrayed in the general public to deliberative democracy, however, this can be attributed to the lack of examples and practice provided. There have not been enough examples to truly prove the long-term effects of deliberative democracy. What has been seen so far does not appear to be strongly negative, if in some cases constructive to what could be done better in the future. More specific to digital deliberation, I believe it is even more important to continue its usage. The concerns - while valid - do not provide reason enough to stop the process all together. The world is always changing, more specifically towards the direction of digitization. Bringing these platforms with it can help facilitate these processes that would otherwise not be available in other formats. Therefore, there should be more examples provided (by the general public) in order to prove if these concerns are not simply legitimate but reason enough to get rid of them. In my opinion, the benefits would outweigh the costs since deliberation would be able to follow the globalization trends while maintaining the discussion alive in a world that has become more divided than we have encountered before.

参考文献
Boswell, J., Dean, R., and Smith, G. (2022) “Integrating citizen deliberation into climate governance: Lessons on robust design from six climate assemblies,” Public Administration, 101(1), pp.182-200.
“Citizens’ Convention on UK Democracy,” Citizens’ convention on UK democracy, 9 Aug 2024.
OECD (2021) “Eight ways to institutionalise deliberative democracy,” OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No.12, OECD Publishing.
“Germany’s Citizens’ Assembly on Democracy (Bürgerrat Demokratie),” Participedia, 9 Aug 2024.
Giraudet, LG., Apouey, B., Arab, H. et al. (2022) “Correction: “co-construction” in deliberative democracy: lessons from the French Citizens’ Convention for Climate,” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9.
“Home,” Convention Citoyenne pour le Climat, 9 Aug 2024.
Martí, José L. (2021). “The role of new technologies in deliberative democracy,” in G. Amato, B, Barbisan and C.Pinelli (eds), Rule of Law vs Majoritarian Democracy, Hart Publishing, pp.199-220.
Mikhaylovskaya, Anna (2024) “Enhancing deliberation with Digital Democratic Innovations,” Philosophy & Technology, 37(3).
Moscrop, David R. H. (2020) “Can We Deliberate? How Motivated Reasoning Undermines Democratic Deliberation and What WeCan Do About it,” in J.D. Sinnott and J.S. Rabin (eds), The Psychology of Political Behavior in a Time of Change. Identity in a Changing World, Springer, pp.365–381.
“Submission to the UK Parliament’s inquiry into the future governance of the UK,” newDemocracy Foundation, 9 Aug 2024.
Uno, Shigeki. (2022) Local Empowerment in the Era of Digitalization, Nippon Institute for Research Advancement.

執筆者

Judith Vega Siurana（ジュディス・ベガ・シウラナ）
NIRA総合研究開発機構　インターン生（米・The Ohio State University）