The Role and the Future of Deliberative Mini-publics: A Citizen Perspective
| Date | 01 August 2019 |
| Published date | 01 August 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032321718794358 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2018
Article
Political Studies
2019, Vol. 67(3) 639 –657
The Role and the Future of
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Deliberative Mini-publics:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321718794358
DOI: 10.1177/0032321718794358
journals.sagepub.com/home/psx
A Citizen Perspective
Vincent Jacquet
Abstract
The last decades have witnessed a spread of democratic innovations. Chief among them are
deliberative mini-publics that gather randomly selected citizens to discuss salient public issues
with the aim of generating some kind of ‘uptake’ in the broader political system. Political theorists
have addressed the pros and cons of such innovations. Nevertheless, little is known about the
citizens’ perspective on such mini-publics and on their role in the political system. Drawing on
qualitative in-depth interviews, this article scrutinizes participants’ expectations. Findings show
that they are motivated by internal expectations (desire of sociability, learning, and civic duty) and
external expectations (presence and voice). Participants fundamentally perceive mini publics as a
way to enrich the linkage between voters and their representatives, without forsaking the logic of
electoral delegation. This work suggests that citizens may have complex and evolving conceptions
of democracy.
Keywords
deliberative democracy, democratic innovations, mini-public, political participation, citizens’
conceptions of democracy
Accepted: 6 July 2018
Introduction
Recent years have witnessed the development of democratic innovations to foster citizen
participation and deliberation. Chief among these innovations are deliberative mini-
publics as citizens’ assemblies, consensus conferences and deliberative polls (Smith,
2009). These processes gather randomly selected citizens to discuss salient political issues
with the aim of generating some kind of ‘uptake’ in the broader political system (Goodin
and Dryzek, 2006). Most empirical research dealing with mini-publics focuses on testing
theoretical assumptions about the internal dynamic and the effects of deliberation on
Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium
Corresponding author:
Vincent Jacquet, Fonds National de la Recherche scientifique - FNRS, Université Catholique de Louvain, Place
Montesquieu, 1 bte L2.08.07, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Email: vincent.jacquet@uclouvain.be
640
Political Studies 67(3)
participants (for an overview of the research see Grönlund et al., 2014). These works have
improved knowledge of how deliberation functions in such small-scale settings. However,
political theorists continue to question the role of mini-publics. Some advocate the use of
such innovations to shape public policies (Fishkin, 2009), while others criticize this option
because it neglects the goal of mass participation (Lafont, 2015). But little is known about
the citizens’ perspective on such innovations. What do participants expect from their com-
mitment? How do they envision the role of mini-publics in the democratic system?
Answering these questions is fundamental to grasp the citizens’ conceptions of democ-
racy. John Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse (2002) have initiated a debate about the
kind of democracy that citizens would like. Challenging the deliberative trend, they argue
that citizens do not want to be more involved in public decision-making nor in delibera-
tion about political issues. They prefer to let politicians decide. Following this seminal
work, other scholars surveyed the level of support for different conceptions of democracy,
showing that the interest in deliberation and participation is much more widespread than
expected (Bengtsson Christensen, 2016; Gherghina and Geissel, 2017; Neblo et al., 2010;
Webb, 2013). Despite some differences, they show that citizens’ conceptions of democ-
racy can be classified into three categories: participatory, technocratic and representative.
Nevertheless, the main limitation of existing research is the vague and broad nature of
these preferences. Using survey methods, citizens are invited to indicate their preferred
decision-makers: citizens, elected officials, experts and even businesspeople. But these
studies do not scrutinize the way citizens perceive concrete opportunities of deliberation
in the current democratic system. More precisely, they do not explain why some citizens
engage in mini-publics, and if they reject the logic of electoral delegation or not. To fill
this gap, we analyse the desires and expectations of those who are actually confronted
with such democratic innovations: the mini-publics lay participants.
This article presents the results of a qualitative study based on in-depth interviews with
participants of two Belgian mini-publics. These reflect the two main types of deliberative
mini-publics (Papadopoulos, 2013). The first is the G1000 and was organized by civil
society. The second is the Climate Citizens’ Parliament (CCP) and was organized by pub-
lic authorities. The in-depth feature of interviews seeks a deep understanding of the par-
ticipants’ perspective (Legard et al., 2003). Interviewees could freely express their
expectations towards the mini-publics as well as the role of this process in the political
system. This is essential to go beyond the results of the survey-based research.
The analysis indicates that two types of incentives attract citizens. The first can only
be achieved by participating in the mini-public: namely a desire of sociability, learning,
and a sense of civic duty. This underlines that citizens who participate in democratic
innovations are not only attracted by their uptake in the system, but also by internal
rewards. Second, regarding the output of the mini-publics, the findings reveal that the
mini-public participants want to provide the decision-makers with information about
their concerns. They aim to enrich the representative linkage between voters and politi-
cians, without forsaking the logic of electoral delegation. According to their perspective,
engagement in deliberative processes and voting are complementary ways to hold the
representatives accountable. This suggests that citizens may have complex conceptions of
democracy based on the contribution of different actors at different stages of the decision-
making process.
The comparison of interviews also indicates that citizens’ conceptions of democracy
are not static. We can see a shift in the beliefs of some participants. The less politically
engaged citizens participate mainly because of internal expectations, but develop a more
Jacquet
641
participatory vision of democracy during the mini-publics. Indeed, the citizens’ concep-
tion of democracy does not rely on fixed preferences. They can evolve when citizens
participate in democratic innovations.
The structure of the article is as follows. It begins with the characteristics of deliberative
mini-publics and the normative debate about their role in the broader political system. Next,
the two cases are presented, and the data collection and analysis are described. The results
are subsequently presented with illustrative quotes. The paper ends with a discussion about
the complex and evolving nature of the citizens’ conceptions of democracy.
The Role of Deliberative Mini-publics
The Spread of Mini-Publics
Political deliberation among randomly selected citizens goes back to ancient Athens and
the Italian republics of the Middle Ages (Manin, 1997). The modern use of this practice
dates from the 1970s with the creation of citizens’ juries and planning cells (Carson and
Martin, 1999). Among political theorists, Robert Dahl (1970) was a pioneer to conceptu-
alize the creation of deliberative mini-publics in his sketches for an advanced democratic
country. He proposed the creation of one mini-public for each major political stake and
one central mini-public to determine the agenda of the others. Nowadays, one can observe
the spread of mini-publics in representative democracies (Grönlund et al., 2014). The
most standardized forms are citizens’ juries, consensus conferences and deliberative polls
(Smith, 2009). Citizens are randomly recruited in the population. With the help of trained
facilitators, participants deliberate about specific political issues. Experts and stakehold-
ers are often invited to share their views and feed the discussions. At the end of the pro-
cess, participants make a series of recommendations or vote on some statements that are
presented to the decision-makers and the broad public.
Mini-publics are favoured because they appear to realize a combination of two demo-
cratic goods (Smith, 2009). First, mini-publics are supposed to embody the ideal of inclu-
sive governance. Through random selection, they tend to attract citizens with diverse
opinions and experiences (Fung, 2007). The aim is to avoid the over-representation of
already active and more advantaged groups that characterizes forums recruited through an
open call. Some scholars argue that if enough citizens are recruited, it is possible to create
a microcosm of the society from a descriptive point of view (Fishkin, 2009). Others insist
on the virtue of diversity generated by this method of recruitment (Landemore, 2013).
Second, mini-publics offer a deliberative space to generate considered judgements.
This mode of communication refers to theoretical turns observed in political...
To continue reading
Request your trial