Improving referendums with deliberative democracy: A systematic literature review
| Published date | 01 January 2025 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/01925121231210048 |
| Author | Irene Witting,Charlotte Wagenaar,Frank Hendriks |
| Date | 01 January 2025 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/01925121231210048
International Political Science Review
2025, Vol. 46(1) 40 –56
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/01925121231210048
journals.sagepub.com/home/ips
Improving referendums with
deliberative democracy:
A systematic literature
review
Irene Witting
Tilburg University, Netherlands
Charlotte Wagenaar
Tilburg University, Netherlands
Frank Hendriks
Tilburg University, Netherlands
Abstract
This article systematically reviews the literature on combining referendums and deliberative processes.
With referendums being criticized for various reasons, including their deliberative deficit, and amid the
deliberative turn in democracy, various hybrid combinations of referendums and deliberative processes
have been practised or suggested. We bring together the hitherto scattered literature that focuses on
assumed and observed strengthening effects of deliberation in light of ascribed referendum deficits.
Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses method, we reviewed
and thematically analysed 55 publications. We show that, despite their different focal points, a clear
overlap exists between perceived shortcomings of referendums and the added value of deliberation.
Expectations of hybridization run high, with empirical evidence emerging that shows promising positive
effects. Nevertheless, non-positive effects are both anticipated and observed, and these underscore the
importance of ensuring appropriate connections between aggregative and deliberative processes and of
systemic embedding.
Keywords
Referendums, deliberation, hybrid democratic innovations, systematic literature review, Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
Corresponding author:
Charlotte Wagenaar, Department of Public Law and Governance, Tilburg University, Postbus 90153, Tilburg,
Netherlands.
Email: C.C.L.Wagenaar@tilburguniversity.edu
1210048IPS0010.1177/01925121231210048International Political Science ReviewWitting et al.
research-article2023
Original Research Article
Witting et al. 41
Introduction
In the search for ‘better’ democracy, various democratic innovations are emerging, commonly
centred on voting or deliberation. Both modes of participation have particular strengths and chal-
lenges. In this article, we are interested in the extent to which the purposeful addition of delibera-
tive instruments to referendum processes reduces the deliberative deficits while retaining the
unique benefits of the latter, thereby strengthening rather than replacing the referendum
instrument.
Democratic innovations are defined as ‘processes or institutions that are new to a policy issue,
policy role, or level of governance, and developed to reimagine and deepen the role of citizens in
governance processes by increasing opportunities for participation, deliberation and influence’
(Elstub and Escobar, 2019: 11). They are developed and designed with the aim to increase demo-
cratic legitimacy (Elstub and Escobar, 2019: 15). These include referendums, which cover ‘all
kinds of ballot measures pertaining to individual issues’ (Jäske and Setälä, 2019: 91) and can take
various forms, such as mandatory, top-down or bottom-up initiated (including citizens’ initiatives).
Referendums generally offer several advantages, including accessibility, inclusiveness and effi-
ciency (Altman, 2011; Taillon, 2018). They produce tangible results that can put pressure on politi-
cians to implement the outcomes, thereby establishing more direct consequences and impacts
(Michels, 2011; Taillon 2018).
Regardless of such advantages, the literature also notes several shortcomings of referendums.1
A prominent criticism concerns their deliberative deficit: referendum processes are criticized for
lacking reasoned public discussion and failing to produce well-considered decisions. Tierney
argues that this deliberative deficit resides in the fact that ‘public reasoning which allows for the
informed reflection and discussion of ideas before decisions are reached is absent from referendum
processes’ (Tierney, 2013: 510). Chambers even argues that the majoritarian character of referen-
dums reduces the motivation to deliberate by diminishing, among both majorities and minorities,
the feeling that one’s input makes any difference and hence ‘an important incentive to be reason-
able’ (Chambers, 2001: 241). Moreover, voter deliberation is discouraged because flexibility and
reversibility are absent: the vote terminates the talking and indicates finality, causing participants
to be less deliberative than when no decision needs to be made. Such deliberative deficits in refer-
endum processes could negatively affect their legitimacy (Taillon, 2018).
Scholarship on deliberative democracy is rapidly expanding, particularly on deliberative mini-
publics and citizens’ assemblies (Elstub and Khoban, 2023; Grönlund et al., 2014). With the delib-
erative turn in democracy, deliberative criticisms of referendums have become more prevalent. At
the same time, deliberative democracy theory has introduced various solutions to counter the delib-
erative, and other, shortcomings of referendums. While referendums were initially disparaged and
deemed incompatible with deliberative democracy (El-Wakil, 2017; Saward, 2001), there is now a
growing interest in adding deliberation to referendums to compensate for their deficits. Della Porta
et al. observe that ‘deliberative democracy has been seen as a way to overcome the problems of a
(simply) majoritarian form of preference aggregation through the debate, based on justification of
arguments and positions. In this perspective, referendums can be seen as opportunities’ (Della
Porta et al., 2017: 15). Being ‘mutually supportive’ and able to ‘reinforce the attractiveness of
each’, Saward (2001: 363) proposes to sequence aggregative and deliberative components. Smith
similarly advocates ‘institutional complementarity’ (Smith, 2009: 189). Various deliberative ele-
ments have been added to or proposed for referendums (Chambers, 2018; Gastil and Richards,
2013; Hendriks and Wagenaar, 2023; LeDuc, 2015; Stojanović, 2023). Well-known empirical
examples include the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review and the Irish Citizens’ Assembly and
referendum on abortion. We refer to such combinations of voting-based and deliberation-based
To continue reading
Request your trial