Listening to Each Other: Citizens’ Assemblies
Summary of key points
The theme of the discussion was ‘Citizens Assemblies: are these a good way to generate better solutions to tough problems? ‘
The main points which emerged from the discussion were:
If our political system cannot embrace methods, such as Citizens’ Assemblies, that widen democratic participation, then that system will be seen as increasingly moribund.
It’s no good trying to run a Citizens’ Assembly on the cheap.
It’s critically important who frames the agenda. Combining community organising with Citizen’s Assemblies could be a good way of both framing the agenda and building momentum for change.
Done well, Citizens’ Assemblies can generate fresh and often bolder responses to entrenched and complex problems. And at the same time make a contribution to tackling the democratic deficit.
But they are not the only method, and fundamental change often requires the practice of radical listening, for which smaller more intimate conversations rather than Citizens’ Assemblies may be better suited.
In more detail
Steve Wyler, co-convenor introduced the model of change set out in the recent Better Way publication Time for a Change.
In this cell we are exploring the ‘listening to each other’ element of this model while noting that there are connections between all four elements, and indeed that applying them in combination makes each more effective.
Our focus this time is ‘Citizens Assemblies’.
Karin Woodley, thought-leader for this Better Way cell, said that we need to dismantle the filters that we set up when we set out to listen to people, and offer new types of spaces that allow people to tell their own stories, without interruption.
Andy Mycock from the University of Huddersfield spoke of the drivers that have led to the creation of Citizens’ Assemblies. These include the decline in participation in local democracy, and in the national democratic process as well. Some advocates of Citizens Assemblies see them not only as a way to achieve greater participation in public decision making, but also as a means to build voice and agency, and to exercise scrutiny over the formal political process. It is certainly the case that those who participate do experience a steep learning curve, although the ability to exercise scrutiny is often less obvious.
There are various questions which are difficult to resolve. Should Citizens Assemblies been seen as a complement or a challenge to existing democratic structures? Sometimes indeed they are seen as a threat, by local councillors or MPs for example. But if they therefore have a disruptive effect, could that be regarded in itself as a positive outcome? Do Citizens Assemblies actually improve the quality of decision making, or not? And are they addressing the symptoms or the causes of the democratic deficit?
The cost and complexity of Citizens’ Assembles can be considerable, and this presents a barrier to their more widespread adoption. There are also inherent difficulties about bias and prejudice – they can become vehicles for the projection and perpetuation of established views. And ultimately, because they do not have executive powers, their findings can be rejected or ignored. However, the evidence to date does suggest that in some cases at least they are capable of generating well-informed and well-considered solutions where other methods have made little progress.
Rich Wilson, from OSCA, previously co-founder of Involve, and currently helping to run the Global Citizens Assembly for COP26 spoke next.
The big innovation of Citizens’ Assemblies, he believes, is sortition, in others words, the selection of people by lot (as is also found in the jury system). The benefit of this is not only that Citizens’ Assemblies are by definition more inclusive, but also that they often produce more ambitious policy.
Citizens’ Assemblies have potential to generate change, either because they have been established by politicians who are willing to act on the outcomes, or because they serve as a platform for citizen activism. In the former case they risk a debilitating parent-child relationship, and remain within an ‘old power’ framework centralised on governments. In the latter case, the Citizens Assembly itself can constitute a political chamber, and can become a manifestation of a ‘new power’ framework where the political process is more widely distributed across communities.
Looking ahead, the challenges are to design a form of Citizens’ Assembly which involve larger numbers (beyond the upper limit of 100 or so at present) and which can evolve into a permanent institution.
Discussion
Breakout sessions were then held to consider the question: Can Citizens Assemblies generate better solutions to tough problems? In the feedback and further discussion participants offered the following responses:
We need to encourage politicians to embrace this way of doing things, or if they won’t, the political system itself will need to change
It was pointed out that politicians tend not to like Citizens’ Assemblies as they are seen as challenging their power.
However, this is not always the case and in Newham the elected Mayor has established the first permanent Citizens’ Assembly, using the principle of sortition.
We asked ourselves whether we should we be trying to persuade the existing political parties to adopt more distributed democratic processes such as Citizens’ Assemblies, or whether we need to establish a new political party with a primary aim of giving away power?
Citizens’ Assemblies only add value when they are designed and run to the highest standards
Citizens’ Assemblies run on the cheap can lead to poor processes and undermine the concept.
There is a need for quality assurance, and protocols, to ensure that Citizens’ Assemblies operate well.
Community organising can be a good way to frame the agenda for a Citizen’s Assembly
There is a fundamental different between a Citizens’ Assembly which is set up to inform and guide an existing power holder, and one that is set up to challenge a prevailing system.
It was felt that a prior exercise in community organising, or something equivalent, is needed, to frame questions which are meaningful for the people who participate, and which can also build momentum for action to follow.
What really matters is radical listening
Citizens’ Assemblies function in a political and academic context, and they don’t necessarily lend themselves to a process of listening without a predetermined agenda, especially where the scope of the inquiry is limited by powerful institutions.
Citizens’ Assemblies can have a place in developing solutions to complex problems, especially those where there are not already sharp party political dividing lines.
However, they should not be seen as a substitute for other types of listening exercise, especially small-scale more intimate discussions, which can create spaces for fresh and creative ideas to emerge, and those, some felt, may prove the more powerful means to accomplish a deeper change.
More information
To find out more, see the following articles which were circulated to participants before the event: