Blog series of the Citizen’s Action for Democracy project (CitiDem)
How to make citizens’ assemblies resonate more widely amongst people in Europe
17 February, 2025
The first webinar of Citidem – How to make citizens’ assemblies resonate more widely amongst citizens in Europe – was a hit! We discussed the effectiveness of different types of citizens’ assemblies in actively involving citizens, and whether assemblies may help to bring citizens closer to democratic politics. We had three excellent speakers as well as a representative from the Ost-Belgien parliament. And the webinar attracted around seventy participants engaging with these complex questions.
Andrea Felicetti, from the University of Padova, engaged with the challenging question of the resonation of citizens’ assemblies to the wider public. He argued that these are difficult times for pushing the boundaries of democracy and reminded us that Citizens’ Assemblies are only one of many of possible democratic innovations.
Felicetti also rightfully indicated that we are currently in very different times from the earlier days in which Citizens’ Assemblies were introduced (some 15 years ago). At the time, the trend was deepening democracy, whereas today we particularly need to defend democracy. Felicetti also warned that we have to be aware that the role of institutions is changing quickly, as many are now increasingly populated by populist, far-right actors (who, most of the time, seem to ignore democratic innovation).
So, it may be best to look beyond institutions, towards civil society and social movements. Indeed, according to Felicetti, the resonation of Citizens’ Assemblies does not only depend on design. Design only partially matters. It is much more relevant being able to learn from practice, as democracy has always been innovated from the bottom-up. In fact, from the 1960s onwards, social movements started practicing democracy in a different way.
At the basis of democratic movements, there is a call for radical democracy, for being imaginative. Such a radical nature is once again important nowadays.
Most institutionally driven democratic innovation is reformist, and it seems that the idea that democratic innovation can revolutionise the system is lost. So, if we support reformism, we support a system that is not going towards democratization or deepening democracy. Fifteen years ago, we could still think this was the way to go, but nowadays we risk being ineffective. According to Felicetti, a deeper, more radical democratic imaginary is needed, not just in rhetoric but in the way we think about democracy, also as the narrative of systematic change has been hijacked by the populists.
Felicetti asked what democratic innovations are in fact for. The clear objective should be democratization. If this is not the outcome of reforms, this is clearly problematic. The problem with Citizens’ Assemblies is that they need to be embedded much more firmly in a public. But, Felicetti warned, it seems that Citizens’ Assemblies cannot resonate much with publics. As such, democratic innovations are not drivers of public enthusiasm. Democratic innovations need to be part of larger struggle for democracy, and innovation will always be rather marginal. Our job then, as intellectuals and civil society actors, is bring in some rationality into the debate, Felicetti concluded.
Melisa Ross, University of Bremen, asked what is the place of citizens assemblies in the current setting? She claimed that it is unfair to portray Citizens’ Assemblies as the solution for all democratic problems. And it unfair on the part of critics to hold Citizens’ Assemblies accountable for solutions Assemblies cannot possibly deliver. Citizens’ Assemblies are in fact part of a much wider range of democratic innovative instruments, and may be excellent in solving some specific problems, but cannot be expected to resolve intractable problems such as polarisation or the rise of authoritarianism. In general, Citizens’ Assemblies may provide fairer access to power for citizens, but Citizens’ Assemblies also lack in legitimacy regarding the wider public. Ross is interestingly working on Citizens’ Assemblies in fragile, constrained, and conflict-affected settings (such as, e.g., the Assembly in the Ukraine in late 2024).
If Citizens’ Assemblies do not have anything to contribute when democracies are challenged, then maybe we may be a bit misguided in expecting Citizens’ Assemblies are in fact promoting democracy.
For Ross, Citizens’ Assemblies generally functions in three ways: 1) Citizens’ Assemblies may help breaking political deadlocks; 2) Citizens’ Assemblies help targeting inclusion, bridging division; or 3) Citizens’ Assemblies may allow for negotiation to happen.
But Citizens’ Assemblies may also be more harmful, again, in three ways: 1) by instrumentalizing participation; 2) by depoliticizing issues; or, 3) by bypassing intermediation and intermediary actors.
Yves Sintomer, University of Paris 8, asked what can Citizens’ Assemblies effectively bring to democracy? Sintomer differentiated between 3 kinds of assemblies, and asked which Citizens’ Assemblies are the most interesting for democracy, as well as, how Citizens’ Assemblies may be best embedded in broader political systems.
The first type Sintomer discussed is the deliberative poll, which reveals the enlightened opinion of the people, and functions as advice to those who decide. The second type is the jury model, which is protected from external inferences, and linked to actual decision-making process (an example is Ireland). The third type: regards the assembly model, such as the French Convention for the climate, which included participation of ecological social movements.
But what type is better? For Sintomer, it really depends. Polls risk to be technocratic and powerless. The jury model is useful for crucial, contentious issues, but it has no link to the agonistic public sphere. The assembly model includes civil society, but is at risk of capture from powerful actors.
Sintomer hence called for a systemic perspective, that is, understanding Citizens’ Assemblies as a part of wider spectrum.
What is needed is a critical attention for forms of domination and power. This is generally ignored in a rather optimistic view of deliberation, which is not a very accurate approach for the world in which we currently live.
Sintomer ended by painting a picture of Citizens’ Assemblies as part of an ecosystem of constant imbalances, where there are predators and preys, strong tensions and asymmetries. Citizens’ Assemblies could be seen as an “invasive species” in the existing political eco-system, and as an idea and practice competing with other invasive species such as authoritarians and populists who endorse very different, potentially undemocratic approaches.
In brief report on practice, Eva Johnen, from the parliament of Ost-Belgien, joined the discussion, and explained the genesis of “Ost-Belgien” model as one of the very few examples of an institutionalised process of citizens’ assemblies. The model – which involves a permanent Secretary and a Citizens’ Council – was set up in 2019, and was inspired by among others the earlier G-1000 experiment. In Ost-Belgien, the citizens’ assemblies are the non-permanent apart of the process. Different assemblies are set up annually on various topics. Citizens’ assemblies produce recommendations, that are subsequently discussed in the Ost-Belgien Parliament. The Parliament has one month to give a first response, and subsequently one year to put recommendations into practice. It is still difficult to give a systematic answer to the question what the effects on citizen participation are (after only some 6 years of operation). One effect has been that former members of citizens’ assemblies have run as political candidates in elections. However, the assembly model still remains little known amongst ordinary citizens.
The webinar continued with a lively debate, and further interventions from – inter alia – Anastasia Karatzia (University of Essex) who introduced the project EU-CIEMBLY project, Lorenzo Mineo (Eumans) who announced the next CitiDem event, a Citizens Assembly on How can we boost citizens rights in the European Union?, 7-8 March in Bruxelles. with a lively debate, Francesco Brignoli (University of Bologna), who raised questions regarding digital technology and the digital public sphere, and Michele Fiorillo (Natura Comune), who drew attention to an Italian citizens’ legislative initiative – Xenia – regarding hospitality towards migrants.
Can citizens’ assemblies save democracy?
10 February, 2025
Many believe liberal, representative democracy is in serious danger. A core challenge is that of populist leader and parties, and other political and economic forces (think of Big Tech) who appear to be little inclined to play according to the democratic rules of the game. In their politics, they often contribute to polarising societies and excluding specific minority groups. In this difficult time for democracy – mala tempora currunt, can citizens’ assemblies play an effective role in stemming the authoritarian tide, and help getting democracies back on track?
Citizens’ assemblies consist of democratic experiments in which a small sample of the larger citizenry comes together for a shorter period of time (for instance, a couple of days or weekends) to discuss specific topics or themes together, such as climate change, euthanasia, AI, or abortion. By now, such democratic experiments have been used in many different societies and for very diverse purposes. And it has been even tried on the European level, in the Conference on the Future of Europe.
In the run-up to this Conference, the CTOE coalition of civil society organisations adopted a Manifesto for a European Citizens’ Assembly and has carried on publicly developing a Blue Print for a Permanent Citizens’ Assembly in Europe. In the wake of this, the experimental project the Democratic Odyssey was started.
Citizens’ assemblies are clearly a great promise for many, but the question of how assemblies may in practice bolster democracy is however not easily answered. The extent to which such assemblies really reinforce democracy and help countering the erosion of democracy is not necessarily self-evident or straightforward. It is this question – how do citizens’ assemblies contribute to reinforce democracy in the face of major challenges? – we want to address in the first Webinar of our project Citizens’ Action for Democracy or in short, CitiDem.
Citizens’ assemblies are promising, but do not always have clear democratic results. One problem with assemblies may be simply that citizens’ assemblies are often not very widely known or discussed in wider society, so a lot of other citizens are not aware these assemblies are happening, or citizens do not have information about their final results. If democracy is about the participation of all, how can the deliberation of only a few citizens meaningfully strengthen democracy? Or, even when assemblies are known by the larger citizenry, assemblies may be perceived as too technical or even as technocratic exercises (especially when set up by governments or state institutions) and in this way might come across as not so democratic at all.
But there are surely other ways of seeing and understanding citizens’ assemblies. One way is to take assemblies as important opportunities to give a voice to citizens (or also simply residents), to return in a way to an idea of citizens connecting to each other, discussing publicly amongst members of the same society about things that matter to the democratic community. In this sense, citizens’ assemblies might help recreate community ties, in a context in groups in society and individuals seem to be increasingly disconnected from each other. Assemblies may help – even if in smaller steps – combat what is sometimes called a “society of individuals”. This may be particularly powerful on the local level.
Most citizens’ assemblies are about either pragmatic problems (such as how to implement sustainability policies or how to reform the electoral system) or complex ethical matters (such as euthanasia or abortion).
But the actual future of democracy, and how citizens and others would understand a better functioning democracy, these questions are not very frequently taken up.
Citizens’ assemblies could also be a way of discussion one of the most pressing issues of our times: in what kind of democracy or other political regime do we want to live? Citizens’ assemblies could be a participatory way of clarifying how people relate to democracy, and how they understand when a democracy works well or not. When democracy needs to deal with pressing issues – such as abortion, migration policy, or the reform of agriculture – what would be the most effective and agreeable democratic means?
Citizens’ assemblies could hence be also about democracy as the main topic.
And rather than deciding on political matters, citizens’ assemblies could help kick start a wider societal debate about the future of democracy. This could involve issues such as, to what democratic standards should political parties respond in their political activities, which kind of positions/statements of political parties are admissible in a democratic public sphere and which not? What forms should regulation of AI and social media take so as to safeguard open, fact-based, and truthful public debate? Or, also, how should complex, sensitive topics such as abortion, migration, or climate change best be dealt with in a democratic way?
Citidem will address such questions of democracy and citizen empowerment in its first webinar, but also put into practice real assemblies, such as the first CitiDem transnational assembly, organized by Eumans, on 7-8 March, 2025, in Brussels. In this assembly, the complex topic of abortion will be addressed from the perspective of democracy: how can our societies decide together on how to go best forward with abortion? This assembly’s main question is: “how we can effectively advocate for citizens’ rights through democratic innovation” and will use the “case of abortion rights … as a starting point for broader discussions”.
Paul Blokker