Today’s most pressing challenges, such as the climate crisis and social inequalities, require multi-faceted, long-term solutions. It can be difficult for individuals to meaningfully engage on such issues without knowing all the facts or having access to viewpoints other than their own. At the same time, in an era of increasing political polarisation, policymakers often struggle to develop balanced solutions, as their decisions may be swayed by political agendas or short-term considerations, such as upcoming elections. The use of representative deliberative models is grounded in the belief that people can develop carefully considered solutions to even the most complex problems if they are provided with appropriate resources. In this case study we will explore representative deliberative models, and Citizens’ Assemblies in particular, and how these are applied in practice. We will highlight the benefits of such models and considerations to take into account when designing and implementing them.
Representative deliberative models share three key features:
- Representativeness: participants are randomly selected in such a way that the demographic profile of the population or community is reflected;
- Deliberation: long discussions in which participants consider different views, carefully weigh trade-offs and form their opinions are a key part of the process;
- Purpose: the objective of these discussions is to formulate policy recommendations and decision-makers commit to considering these recommendations.
These models value quality over quantity: more in-depth participation of a smaller number of people instead of short engagement of a high number of individuals. While both types of engagements (depth and breadth) have advantages, deliberative participation is especially suitable for complex and value-driven issues. People are not just invited to give their opinion but to engage in a process that facilitates them to deepen their understanding and form a nuanced judgement. Both lived experiences, data and expert views are valued in the process. People are encouraged to listen actively and think critically. Deliberative participation harnesses the power of people coming together, broadening their perspective and engaging in collective thinking. Moreover, the random selection of participants allows for a broad range of voices to be heard. According to the OECD, representative deliberative models have the potential to give agency to a much wider range of citizens, rebuild trust in government and lead to more legitimate and effective public decision-making.
Citizens’ Assemblies: how do they work?
Citizens’ Assemblies are considered the most robust and elaborate one of the representative deliberative models: in their study, the OECD found that Citizens’ Assemblies gather on average 90 people for 18.8 days during an average timespan of 18 months. Similar setups that involve fewer people or have a shorter duration are classified by the OECD as other models: Citizens’ Councils or Citizens’ Dialogues. However, these terms are used in different ways in different contexts. Nonetheless, a common key characteristic of a Citizens’ Assembly is an in-depth engagement of participants.
When an Assembly has been formed, these are the 3 important phases participants need to go through:
- Learning phase: participants are presented with information, expert opinions and views of stakeholders. This phase can be prepared by an independent advisory group, which ensures that diverse information and views are presented. Participants should also have the opportunity to invite other experts or consult more stakeholders.
- Deliberation phase: participants form their opinions through long, in-depth discussions.
- Decision-making phase: participants develop recommendations. This phase could include a process of selecting the final recommendations through voting.
While face-to-face meetings are essential parts of the deliberation process, such meetings can be combined with online sessions, for example through online expert hearings. Broader stakeholder participation through submissions, polls and surveys can also be integrated in the process.
Citizens’ Assemblies and other types of representative deliberative models are usually convened by policymakers, but they can also be initiated by CSOs.
Inspiring examples of Citizens' Assemblies
Case study: How citizen-driven insights help fight misinformation and drive educational reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina
The unique example of Bosnia and Herzegovina demonstrates how citizen participation can lead to concrete policy outcomes and the implementation of educational reform. A Citizens’ Assembly was organised and held in Sarajevo (Ilidža) on 16-17 December 2023 to create a space for open discussion among citizens about disinformation and media freedoms in the country. The Assembly convened 39 citizens from across the country: people of all age groups and with diverse ethnic and regional origins. Supported by professional facilitators, they discussed issued such as regulation and self-regulation of the media, the importance of education and strategies to strengthen resilience against misinformation. One of the main goals of the Assembly was to produce “Policy Recommendations”, i.e., to provide concrete proposals to policymakers, media entities, and civil society on a coordinated approach to solving the problems of misinformation. The Policy Recommendations that emerged from the assembly were presented to decision-makers at the local and national level for further consideration and implementation.
Following the Assembly and publication of the Policy Recommendations, the Centre for Civic Initiatives (CCI) carried out a pilot project in the canton of Tuzla for the implementation of one of the Policy Recommendations, which called on strengthening media literacy through formal and informal education. Education is regulated at the cantonal level in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, so the Policy Recommendation had to be implemented by Tuzla’s authorities. The complex administrative structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina's education system required careful navigation; two separate analyses of media literacy in education were conducted: one for Republic of Srpska by Dr. Snježana Đuričić and another for Tuzla Canton by Prof. Namir Ibrahimović. These analyses confirmed citizens' concerns, revealing that media literacy education was fragmented across different subjects without a systematic approach or clearly defined learning outcomes. Particularly concerning was the discovery that books used for media culture were severely outdated, some dating back to 2009.
CCI and Bosnian media literacy experts from the organisation “Step By Step” developed a manual for media literacy and tested it in three primary and three secondary schools, represented by both librarians and subject teachers. This diversity proved to be crucial: it helped to understand how media literacy concepts could be integrated across different subjects and age groups. Following favourable and constructive feedback from children and schools, the manual was finalised and formally approved by the ministries in the canton of Tuzla. As of October 2024, the manual will be distributed to primary and secondary schools in Tuzla as part of their educational curriculum.
The above efforts were supported by the project “Combating Disinformation in the Western Balkans” (CDWB), funded by the EU that aimed to tackle foreign information manipulation and interference in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro and Serbia. The project sought to mitigate disinformation influence by actively involving citizens in activities and decision-making. While the CDWB project initially focused on monitoring media disinformation and manipulation, the Assembly's recommendations strongly emphasised strengthening media literacy through formal education. This citizen-driven insight proved transformative for the project's direction. The representatives of the Ministry of Education and the Parliamentary Committee provided great institutional support and actively contributed to the process. Their involvement ensured that the manual aligns with educational standards while meeting practical classroom needs.
The response to the initiative has been extremely encouraging. Teachers who had already started implementing the manual's approaches shared their experiences with their colleagues. These early adopters' enthusiasm has created a ripple effect, generating interest from other educators and institutions.
We are grateful to Mahir Poljić from the Centre for Civic Initiatives (CCI) for sharing information about the initiative and their inspiring work.
Case study: How citizens assemblies shaped contentious social issues in Ireland
Ireland has long been seen as a trailblazer in the use of Citizens' Assemblies. The first large-scale initiative to gather public input through an assembly in Ireland began in 2012 with the launch of the Constitutional Convention. Its purpose was to collect feedback on constitutional issues such as the legalisation of same-sex marriage and voting rights. A polling company was hired to ensure a representative sample, leading to the selection of 66 citizens. Additionally, 33 public representatives from both Houses of the Oireachtas and the Northern Ireland Assembly, along with an independent chair, were appointed to support the process, which was facilitated by experts. This group met regularly during a period of 18 months (2012-2014) to discuss 10 issues. To ensure inclusivity, sessions were held over weekends, with participants receiving small compensation and having their meals and accommodation provided. The most significant outcome was a report with recommendations that led to the 2015 referendum legalising same-sex marriage. The timing was ideal as, in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, the newly-elected government was open to new ideas that could be gathered in a cost-effective manner, aiming to rebuild citizens' trust in politics.
The subsequent 2016–2018 Citizens' Assembly tackled five major issues: abortion, climate change, aging population, referenda, and fixed-term parliaments. 100 citizens were randomly selected to represent a broad spectrum of age, gender, geography, and social class. The report produced by the assembly recommended repealing Ireland's constitutional ban on abortion, which was followed by the successful 2018 referendum where two-thirds of voters supported the change. Participants were generally satisfied with the deliberative process. One of the success factors was the existence of a reference group, consisting of representatives from the assembly, which was consulted on the meeting agendas prior to the session and feedback from participants. For example, after this group noted that the voices of women with lived experience were missing, these voices were included in a subsequent session, making it one of the most impactful weekends of the process. Representatives from France, Belgium, and the UK visited Ireland to learn from this successful model, and Irish experts contributed to the Conference on the Future of Europe.
Unfortunately, the series of successes faltered with the 2020-2021 Irish Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality. The goal was to propose policies to combat gender discrimination, support women’s leadership, promote work-life balance and address caregiving and pay inequalities. As a result of a successful deliberative process, participants developed 45 recommendations, including 3 recommendations regarding the removal of gendered language from the Constitution. Unfortunately, to the disappointment of participants, the process lacked adequate follow-up. After a delay of one year, the government announced that a referendum would be organised regarding two constitutional changes. However, the wording of the proposed amendment was changed compared to the recommendation of the Citizens’ Assembly and the public debate became highly polarised: some civil society organisations advocated for “yes/yes” and others for a “progressive no vote”. On March 8 (International Women’s Day), a referendum was held in which 67.7% of voters opposed redefining "family" in the Constitution, and 73.9% voted against amending the article on recognising care work. The experience from Ireland, especially the successful deliberations around abortion and same-sex marriage, demonstrates that Citizens’ Assemblies have enormous potential to address contentious issues, particularly when there is political buy-in for change. A transparent, deliberative process can enhance legitimacy of such changes. It helps that, in a relatively small country like Ireland, many people have some connection to the participants. However, adequate follow-up is critical to maintain public trust and prevent disappointment and frustration among participants.
Special thanks to our colleagues from Ireland, Ronan Kennedy from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and David Farrell from University College Dublin, for shedding light on the process of citizens' assemblies in Ireland.
What are the key benefits of representative deliberative participation?
- It can lead to better, more balanced policies through informed and thoughtful decision making, considering both lived experiences and expert opinions;
- It allows for more inclusive decision-making processes: through the selection process, people from diverse backgrounds are engaged;
- It can enhance legitimacy of and trust in public decisions as they have been influenced by people who represent different segments of the population.
- It can help build bridges and counter polarization as people with different backgrounds work together on an issue and are exposed to new perspectives. Research has shown that participation in deliberative processes can have lasting effects on political engagement.
Key considerations when convening a Citizens’ Assembly:
- Clear purpose and mandate: the purpose of the process and the mandate of the assembly or council must be clear to everyone.
- Representation: The methodology of selecting participants needs to ensure random sampling of individuals that represent the populations demography. Everyone should have an equal opportunity to be selected as a participant.
- Bottom-up approach: most examples of already implemented citizen assemblies had pre-defined topics that were selected by policymakers. To create increased ownership in the people participating in these programs, possibility of proposing topics/issues to discuss during citizens’ assemblies needs to be considered. In addition, participants should be enabled to influence the process and meeting agendas.
- Inclusivity and accessibility: measures must be taken to ensure that people of different backgrounds can participate, for example by carefully picking the day, time and venue at which meetings will take place and by providing interpretation (including in sign language), childcare facilities, financial compensation for time investment and reimbursement of transportation cost etc. Stratified random selection and/or quota systems can help to ensure the inclusion of underrepresented groups.
- Preparation: thorough preparation is important, ensuring that participants have access to balanced information and different viewpoints. It is recommended to engage experienced professionals in the preparatory phase, rather than tasking civil servants to organize citizens’ assemblies, to ensure the process is designed according to best practices.
- Facilitation: meetings should be facilitated by neutral, skilled facilitators that are able to guide the process and ensure that all participants have equal opportunities to express their views.
- Safe space: a safe space in which participants respect each other and feel confident to express their opinions is critical. Safeguards should be in place to ensure that participants are not influenced by political actors/policymakers.
- Necessary resources secured: deliberative processes require time and resources. Sufficient funding needs to be available to make them possible and meaningful.
- Transparency and information sharing: to strengthen trust in the process, it is important to be transparent and keep the wider public informed, e.g. by publishing relevant documentation, engaging media, and/or livestreaming (parts of) the sessions.
- Follow-up: it should be clearly communicated to participants and the wider public how the outputs of the programme are used by policymakers. If recommendations are not followed, it should be explained why this decision has been made.
- Institutionalisation: although there are more and more states recognising the potential of citizen assemblies to increase public participation, examples where the process is systematically integrated in the democratic process are lacking.
Check out the following useful resources on citizens’ assemblies:
- OECD Report on Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions
- Involve’s explainer on Deliberative Public Engagement
This case study was prepared by the European Center for Not-for-Profit Law Stichting (ECNL) within the framework of the ParticipatiON Project, funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of ECNL only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.