Women’s voices in a deliberative assembly: An analysis of gender rates of participation in Ireland’s Convention on the Constitution 2012–2014
| Date | 01 February 2021 |
| Published date | 01 February 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1369148120951021 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
research-article2020
Original Article
The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations
Women’s voices in a
2021, Vol. 23(1) 175 –193
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
deliberative assembly: An
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148120951021
DOI: 10.1177/1369148120951021
analysis of gender rates of
journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi
participation in Ireland’s
Convention on the Constitution
2012–2014
Clodagh Harris1 , David M Farrell2,
Jane Suiter3 and Mary Brennan2
Abstract
Ireland’s Convention on the Constitution (2012–2014) was a world-first process in mixing
randomly selected private citizens and political representatives in a deliberative mini-public that
made recommendations on a wide range of constitutional issues. Acknowledging the gender gap
identified in studies of deliberative forums, the Convention made specific design choices in an
effort to achieve gender inclusion. Using data collected during the course of the Convention, we
explore the effects of contextual (institutional rules, procedures and topics discussed) and actor-
related characteristics (gender, type of membership) on inclusion. We find that contextual issues
such as the topic discussed and the gender composition of the small roundtable deliberations did
not influence gender rates of participation. However, the forum of participation did, with women
participating more than men in the facilitated small group sessions.
Keywords
citizens assembly, deliberative democracy, democratic innovation, gender participation, inclusion,
Ireland’s constitutional convention, mini-public
Introduction
Ireland’s Convention on the Constitution, established by a resolution of the Irish
Parliament in 2012, included randomly selected private citizens and elected politicians
in a deliberative mini-public that was charged with making recommendations on con-
stitutional issues ranging from amending the electoral system to introducing marriage
1Department of Government and Politics, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
2School of Politics and International Relations, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
3School of Communications, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland
Corresponding author:
Clodagh Harris, Department of Government and Politics, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Email: clodagh.harris@ucc.ie
176
The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 23(1)
equality. Similar to mini-publics elsewhere, the Convention’s work was grounded in
theories of deliberative democracy.
Deliberative democrats contend that a political decision is legitimate if it can with-
stand scrutiny by those bound by it (Beetham, 2012; Dryzek, 2007). Collective decisions,
it is argued, should be made using reflective public reasoning and they are legitimate to
the extent that those subjected to them have the right, opportunity and capacity to contrib-
ute to deliberations on them (Hendriks et al., 2007). A defining feature of deliberations is
the focus on ‘reasonableness’, which requires ordinary citizens to consider the arguments
of differently situated and opinionated others; to present reasons for their own prefer-
ences; weigh up the arguments in ‘a context of good information’ (Isernia and Fishkin,
2014: 313); and to be ‘amenable to changing their minds and their preferences as a result
of reflection induced by deliberation’ (Dryzek, 2000: 31). This focus on public ‘reasona-
bleness’ characterises the deliberative aspect of deliberative democracy, while the empha-
sis on inclusion and equality ensures its democratic credentials (Dryzek, 2009).
The relationship between inclusion and equality is captured in Young’s (2000) discus-
sion of external and internal exclusion. Deliberations overcome external exclusion by
being open to those affected by a decision (Curato et al., 2017; Mansbridge et al., 2010).
However, it is argued that including people in a process, though essential, does not guar-
antee equality of voice (Fraser, 1992; Lupia and Norton, 2017; Young, 2000). As
Karpowitz and Raphael (2016: 17) assert, ensuring ‘inclusion in practice is often far more
complex than merely opening the doors of the forum to all comers or even than inviting a
simple random sample of the public at large’. It also requires guaranteeing voice, respect
and consideration within the process to minimise the risk of internal exclusion.
Studies of political participation in deliberative forums note that women are one cohort
that may be disadvantaged in such processes as they tend to speak less than men thereby
having less influence and authority (Gerber et al., 2019; Hansen, 2006; Karpowitz et al.,
2012; Karpowitz and Mendelberg, 2014). However, it has been observed that contextual
issues such as institutional design and communication formats can go some way to redress-
ing imbalances in participation rates (Himmelroos, 2017; Karpowitz et al., 2012; Karpowitz
and Mendelberg, 2014; Mendelberg et al., 2014; Mendelberg and Karpowitz, 2016).
The ‘gender gap’ in deliberation should be of concern for at least four reasons. First,
from the perspective of democratic legitimacy, the exclusion of a significant section of
society risks weakening the legitimacy not only of the outcomes but also the entire process.
Second, it undermines the diversity required to meet the epistemic and ethical functions of
deliberative democracy (Beauvais and Bächtiger, 2016). Third, the absence of women’s
opinions in the political arena is worrying when we consider that studies show that men’s
and women’s attitudes differ on key policy issues and that they are impacted differentially
by policy decisions (see Celis and Lovenduski, 2018; Murphy, 2015). Finally, it is important
in terms of throughput legitimacy as it has been observed that the higher the proportion of
women in deliberations, the higher the levels of respect and overall satisfaction with the
process (Grünenfelder and Bächtiger, 2007; Hickerson and Gastil, 2008; Pedrini, 2014).
Mindful of research in the field, Ireland’s Convention on the Constitution used particu-
lar institutional design features in an effort to achieve gender inclusion. These features
(set out below) were reflected in terms of the recruitment of members and invited speak-
ers as well as the procedures, processes and rules.
This article assesses its success in this regard by examining the effects of contextual
(institutional rules, procedures and topics discussed) and actor-related characteristics
(gender, type of membership) on inclusion. To set the context of the study, we start in the
first section with a brief overview of the Convention and its work. This is followed in
Harris et al.
177
section ‘Deliberative mini-publics: inclusion and equality’ with a discussion of how
inclusion and equality can be measured in mini-publics and an exploration of the gen-
dered nature of deliberation in practice, which results in a series of hypotheses. Section
‘Inclusion in Ireland’s convention on the constitution: gender analysis’ sets out an analy-
sis and discussion of the article’s findings.
Ireland’s convention on the constitution
Established by the Irish Government through a resolution of the Houses of Parliament in
July 2012, the Irish Convention on the Constitution included 100 members consisting of
66 private citizens, 33 elected legislators and an Independent chairperson. Its work pro-
gramme ran from January 2013 to March 2014 and it met 10 times in total (see Farrell
et al., 2017; Suiter et al., 2016).
The private citizen members were selected at random by an independent market
research company that used a multistaged sampling procedure, stratified across gender,
age, socioeconomic status and geography.1 Target quotas were established using the
Central Statistics’ Office’s (CSO) population estimates. All core targets were achieved.
The political parties determined how their parliamentary members were selected. All
major political parties on the island of Ireland as well as a grouping of Independent rep-
resentatives were invited to send members to the Convention. The parties’ allocations
were proportionate to their representation in parliament. To allow for the possibility of
members not being available for all meetings, a list of substitute members was compiled.
This allowance for substitutes meant that it was possible for members not to attend par-
ticular sessions.2
The Convention was tasked with considering eight specific issues: reduction of the
Presidential term of office to 5 years, reduction of the voting age to 17, review of the Dáil
electoral system, Irish citizens’ right to vote at Irish embassies in Presidential elections,
provisions for marriage equality, amendment to the existing clause in the Irish Constitution
on the role of women in the home and encouraging greater participation of women in
public life, increasing the participation of women in politics and removal of the offence
of blasphemy from the Constitution. The parliamentary resolution that established the
Convention also allowed it to propose other relevant constitutional amendments after the
original eight reports were completed, thereby giving the Convention some limited
agenda setting powers to add two additional topics: parliamentary reform and the inser-
tion of economic, social and cultural rights into the Constitution.
The eclectic range of...
To continue reading
Request your trial