Equality by lot

A highly cited 2017 paper by Vincent Jacquet reports about the outcomes of interviews with 34 people who turned down offered (potential) participation in one of three allotted bodies in Belgium: the G1000, the G100 and the Citizen Climate Parliament (CCP).

Explaining non-participation in deliberative mini-publics

Abstract: This article investigates citizens’ refusal to take part in participatory and deliberative mechanisms. An increasing number of scholars and political actors support the development of mini-publics, that is, deliberative forums with randomly selected lay citizens. It is often argued that such innovations are a key ingredient to cure the democratic malaise of contemporary political regimes because they provide an appropriate means to achieve inclusiveness and well considered judgment. Nevertheless, real-life experience shows that the majority of citizens refuse the invitation when they are recruited. This raises a challenging question for the development of a more inclusive democracy: Why do citizens decline to participate in mini-publics? This article addresses this issue through a qualitative analysis of the perspectives of those who have declined to participate in three mini-publics: the G1000, the G100 and the Climate Citizens Parliament. Drawing on in-depth interviews, six explanatory logics of non-participation are distinguished: concentration on the private sphere, internal political inefficacy, public meetings avoidance, conflict of schedule, political alienation and mini-public’s lack of impact on the political system. This shows that the reluctance to take part in mini-publics is rooted in the way individuals conceive their own roles, abilities and capacities in the public sphere but also in the perceived output of such democratic innovations.

The main findings appear in Table 3 of the paper, titled “The six explanatory logics of non-participation in mini-publics”. This table summarizes the findings of an analysis in which explanations were categorized into types (“logics”) and the frequency of explanations of each type being mentioned was recorded (often, being 10 or more times out of 34, or less often, otherwise).
Continue reading →

Filed under: Academia, Applications, Sortition | 22 Comments »