Open Citizens' Juries and the Politics of Sustainability
| Date | 01 June 2003 |
| Author | Jules Pretty,Todd Landman,Aletta Norval,Hugh Ward |
| Published date | 01 June 2003 |
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-9248.00424 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Open Citizens’ Juries and the Politics
of Sustainability
Hugh Ward, Aletta Norval, Todd Landman and Jules Pretty
University of Essex
Scholars have sought to establish a link between sustainability and deliberative democracy. Some
suggest that citizens’ juries can realise this link, especially since they encourage a deeper form of
democratic participation. However, we argue that there remain important problems. We therefore
propose an open citizens’ jury model as an alternative, based on key principles drawn from demo-
cratic theory.
Deliberative democracy is often proposed as conducive to the achievement of envi-
ronmental sustainability (Dryzek, 1990; Pretty, 1995; Renn et al., 1995; Docherty
and de Geus, 1996; Young, 1997b; Coenen et al., 1998; Mason, 1999; Uphoff,
2002). Its proponents argue that it offers a model of democratic practice that allows
for particular types of engagement by citizens in decision-making. Citizens may
take a longer-term, more socially-oriented point of view when they are encour-
aged to deliberate on environmental issues. As a result, they may be less prone to
free ride, driven by narrow self-interest (Gunderson, 1995; Saward, 1993; Ward,
2001). Moreover, they are more likely to see decisions they have participated in
making as legitimate, so their lifestyles are more likely to be altered and associated
policies more likely to be implemented (UN, 1993). Local knowledge of environ-
mental conditions, institutions and social capital can be drawn upon to encourage
better deals that stick (Selman and Parker, 1997; Pretty and Ward, 2001; Pretty,
2002).
Citizens’ juries are one institutionalisation of the deliberative model (Crosby et al.,
1986; Stewart et al., 1994; Crosby, 1995; LGMB, 1996; Coote and Lenaghan, 1997;
McIver, 1998; Smith and Wales, 2000, p. 54).1They are typically composed of
10–20 people, selected randomly as a quota sample, to be statistically representa-
tive of the major strata of society. Members are asked to take an informed, longer-
term, and impartial view of an issue. They answer a ‘charge’ posed by the
organisers, who typically consult the sponsors of the jury and occasionally other
stakeholders when framing it. Jurors are paid to participate for two to three days,
during which they receive evidence from a range of sources. They can cross-
examine witnesses and call for more information. Trained facilitators help jurors
through the process and a moderator chairs proceedings. Juries are normally
expected to achieve consensus, although they can resort to majority voting and
voice minority viewpoints. To avoid tensions with elected bodies, juries normally
make recommendations, and sponsors generally formally respond (Coote and
Lenaghan, 1997).
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2003 VOL 51, 282–299
© Political Studies Association, 2003. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main
Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
OPEN CITIZENS’ JURIES 283
Citizens’ juries have considerable promise for those concerned with sustainability
(Renn, 1984; RCEP, 1998; Ward, 1999; Aldred and Jacobs, 2000; Kenyon and
Hanley, 2000). However, we focus on several problems with current practice
related to the normative conception of deliberation on which citizens’ juries are
modelled. We propose an alternative jury format inspired by a reworked concep-
tion of democratic practice. This open jury format is contrasted with a ‘standard
model’ of citizens’ juries,2and contains five elements: (i) an agenda arrived at
through open consultation; (ii) an open witness policy; (iii) an extended time
frame; (iv) a critique of rationalistic forms of debate; and (v) use of information
technology to address problems associated with access and cost.
This article is divided into three parts. The first part introduces the case for citi-
zens’ juries, and then highlights existing problems with theory and practice of
deliberative democracy and citizens’ juries. The second part treats the advantages
and disadvantages of the open jury. It is important, however, to emphasise that
this model is not designed to overcome all problems associated with the need to
extend and deepen democratic practice in citizens’ juries. Our aim is to open up
the debate around both theory and design, and to draw on new developments to
address these problems. The third part draws together conclusions about citizen
juries, deliberative democracy, and the politics of sustainability.
Citizens’ Juries and Deliberative Democratic Theory
Many proposals exist to extend and deepen public participation over sustainabil-
ity, ranging from deliberative opinion polls to forums.3Most are designed to address
some aspect of the structural limitations faced by public participation, which are
often more acute where sustainability is concerned. Public participation in this
context often has only a marginal influence on policy owing to lack of funding,
resistance from existing policy communities, and structural biases favouring con-
ventional forms of economic growth (Lafferty and Eckerberg, 1997; O’Riordan and
Voisey, 1998; Mason, 1999). We are particularly concerned with the quality of
deliberation and the exclusion of some social groups and ideas from the democra-
tic process (Dryzek, 1990; Renn et al., 1995). Levels of participation are often low
(Selman and Parker, 1997, p. 174; Mason 1999, p. 191) and the young, the old,
ethnic minorities and those unsympathetic to the green cause tend to be excluded
(Selman and Parker, 1997, p. 178; Doak, 1998; Mason, 1999, pp.187–91). Partici-
pation itself often takes the form of consultation over a limited set of options,
thereby foreclosing deliberation (Young 1997b; RCEP, 1998, p. 103). In the light
of deliberative democratic theory can citizens’ juries help address these problems?
Advantages of Citizens’ Juries
There are good practical and theoretical reasons for supporting citizens’ juries as
an innovation for deepening democratic participation. It is generally accepted that
citizens’ juries can address many of the problems associated with obtaining quality
participation. There are three areas of particular concern in this respect. The first
concerns the need to make space for deliberation and to address the problem of
inducing people to participate; the second, the question of social balance and rep-
To continue reading
Request your trial