True democracy is practised with the public, not done for them. But what is to be the role of the public in the future?
Citizens’ assemblies can be useful but they are not the panacea that many seem to think they are. I have lost count of the number of authors and commentators who, at the end of their disquisition on the state of British democracy, offer nothing else, let alone an indication of who is to do the skilled work of setting them up and running them (rigorously and with integrity) month after month and year after year. They have their limitations, as is now generally accepted.
How citizens’ assemblies worked in Ireland
The euphoria comes largely from the acclaim citizens’ assemblies received in Ireland, when they helped that country to decide where it stood on same sex marriage and abortion. However, it is now being realised that binary issues like those are special cases (abortion is either morally acceptable or it is not). Most public issues revolve around questions of allocation of resources – of time and effort as well as money — plus how accountability is to be allocated and responsibility taken for the outcome of decisions put into effect. Eoin O’Malley of the Irish Times, an early and influential advocate of citizens’ assemblies, now takes a more nuanced view.
When conclusions differ
Perhaps the greatest downside of the citizen’s assembly approach is that their participant’s views can differ from those of elected Parliamentary representatives. Introducing a rival form of representation into an already over-adversarial system, will inevitably tend to set up more tension in politics rather than promote a focus on the common good. When Parliament and other assemblies reach different conclusions, to what demagogue might we be tempted to defer in order to resolve such tensions?
We cannot compare citizens’ assemblies to juries in court
Much of the intuitive attraction to citizen’s assemblies comes from their use of sortition in selection of participants, and an association made with the long-respected random selection of trial juries. This linking is spurious. Juries are formed without reference to a juror’s personal characteristics. The opposite applies in a citizens assembly, where the intention is for its participants to be selected to form a cross section of the wider public. This selecting is not an easy task if done rigorously and is always dependent on the attributes looked at in the selection.
Moreover, jurors are told to put aside any knowledge or opinions they have previously acquired, so as to deliberate and decide solely on the evidence presented in the Court, whereas, crucially, assembly participants are expected to contribute their foreknowledge and opinions.
Citizens’ assemblies are not inclusive
Citizens Assemblies are seen by some as a way of increasing participation by the public in decision making. Yet, they exclude the vast majority of the public, many of whom may have particular knowledge or first-hand experience to offer. This can deny them involvement in a proceeding which may, through consequent changes in the law, greatly impinge on their lives. Effective changes in the law depend on their legitimacy being accepted by the public at large — something that cannot be achieved without a process which allows each citizen a say in it: either in their voting for their elected representatives or in a confirmatory referendum. Pre-empting either of those mechanisms under the guise of a citizens’ assembly — in effect involving almost next to no one — can hardly be deemed ‘participation by the public’.
One way to augment our democratic institutions to enable every citizen to make their contribution can be found at my previous article.
