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).
Logic Short description Presence in interview Concentration on the private sphere Preference for spending time in the private sphere, especially with family and at the work place; withdrawal from the public arena Often Internal inefficacy Self-disqualification because of perceived lack of political competence and expertise regarding the discussed topics Less often Public meetings avoidance Avoidance of public meetings due to a dislike of group situations, the reluctance to speak up in public and the fear of others’ judgment Less often Conflict of schedule Other events or activities planned on the same day or week-end as the mini-public Often Political alienation Generalized rejection of political activities with a feeling of powerlessness; participation seen as an elite-driven manipulation Less often Mini-public’s lack of impact Negative evaluation of the mini-public because of the lack of potential outputs on the political system Often
Filed under: Academia, Applications, Sortition |
Adam Cronkright
Ali
Ahmed R. Teleb
avanderven
avergne
Alex Kovner
azakaras
Brett Hennig
campbellwallace
Simon Threlkeld
Nick Coccoma
codyhipskind
Common Lot Sortitionist
Conall Boyle
constitutionalism
davidschecter
graytmatter
gtridimas
H.J. Hofkirchner
John Burnheim
jgarry20151
Jochen Krattenmacher
johnedwardtaylor
johnhuang865
Jonathan Crock
keithsutherland
Jacob Richter
kkoreilly
lukewhito
SimonPek
Nathan El
Nicholas Gruen
Owen Shaffer
Patrick Chalmers
Paul Gölz
peterstone
Pierre-Etienne Vandamme
pronfeld
Emil
rcaze
richwbrown
Roger Knights
roslynfuller
Pierre-Etienne Vandamme
shaharavin
tbouricius
Ted Wachtel
Joshua Laferriere
theodorestathis
towardsautonomyblog
Wayne Liebman
Yoram Gat
Oliver Milne
Equality by lot 
If participation is couched in terms of civic obligation (as with regular jury service), then this is little more than navel gazing. If your lot is drawn then it is your duty (and privilege) as a citizen to represent your peers. It should only happen once in a lifetime.
LikeLike
The paper mentions that none of the three bodies offered payment to prospective members and asks “[c]ould money entirely or partially offset non-participation logics?”. It is interesting that this notion, that appropriate payment could be used to increase acceptance rates, seems to be avoided by both supporters, including organizers, and critics. Payment is the standard answer for recruitment for important (or undesired) roles. No one is expecting MPs to serve for free. Remuneration for members of allotted bodies was an important element in the Athenian democracy. Why is this obvious recruitment tool ignored in the context of “deliberative democracy”?
Instead coercion (i.e., sanctions for those who refuse to participate) is often offered. To some, nothing says “democracy” like coercion, it seems.
LikeLike
Bribery and coercion strike me as morally equivalent. Both fail to live up to the standard of civic duty. “Ask not what your country can do for you . . .”
LikeLike
> Bribary
Typical manipulative language.
Somehow for most tasks compensation is considered legitimate. Only when average citizens are asked to disrupt their lives, spending time and effort serving their country, compensation is considered “bribary”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For the sake of clarification, “quasi-mandatory” is agnostic as to whether the emphasis should be on the carrot or the stick. The point is that political jury service is a civic duty, not a lifestyle choice.
LikeLike
> The point is that political jury service is a civic duty, not a lifestyle choice.
Yet another standard-issue manipulative slogan meaning nothing and pandering to self-importance and prejudice. You would do great selling laundry detergent.
If it is important for society that everybody serves, society shows its appreciation by adequate compensation (as well as accommodation of any justified personal requirements by the allotted). Being stingy while talking pompously about “civic duty” reeks of hypocrisy and manipulation. (This is of course exactly the situation with jury duty.)
LikeLike
>You would do great selling laundry detergent.
Thanks Yoram, I must give it a try! (and I’ve got no problem with adequate compensation). PS Does Maurice Pope’s insistence that sortition be applied in a “rigorous and compulsory” way mean that he is also an authoritarian? That would be surprising, given his departure from South Africa as a protest against apartheid.
LikeLike
[…] Explaining non-participation in deliberative mini-publics” [Equality by Lot]. Summarizing a “highly cited” paper by Vincent Jacquet, a handy […]
LikeLike
[…] Explaining non-participation in deliberative mini-publics” [Equality by Lot]. Summarizing a “highly cited” paper by Vincent Jacquet, a handy […]
LikeLike
[…] Explaining non-participation in deliberative mini-publics” [Equality by Lot]. Summarizing a “highly cited” paper by Vincent Jacquet, a handy […]
LikeLike
[…] Explaining non-participation in deliberative mini-publics” [Equality by Lot]. Summarizing a “highly cited” paper by Vincent Jacquet, a handy […]
LikeLike
[…] Explaining non-participation in deliberative mini-publics” [Equality by Lot]. Summarizing a “highly cited” paper by Vincent Jacquet, a handy […]
LikeLike
[…] Explaining non-participation in deliberative mini-publics” [Equality by Lot]. Summarizing a “extremely cited” paper by Vincent Jacquet, a helpful […]
LikeLike
[…] Explaining non-participation in deliberative mini-publics” [Equality by Lot]. Summarizing a “highly cited” paper by Vincent Jacquet, a handy […]
LikeLike
[…] Explaining non-participation in deliberative mini-publics” [Equality by Lot]. Summarizing a “highly cited” paper by Vincent Jacquet, a handy […]
LikeLike
[…] Explaining non-participation in deliberative mini-publics” [Equality by Lot]. Summarizing a “extremely cited” paper by Vincent Jacquet, a useful […]
LikeLike
[…] Explaining non-participation in deliberative mini-publics” [Equality by Lot]. Summarizing a “highly cited” paper by Vincent Jacquet, a handy […]
LikeLike
[…] Explaining non-participation in deliberative mini-publics” [Equality by Lot]. Summarizing a “extremely cited” paper by Vincent Jacquet, a helpful […]
LikeLike
[…] Explaining non-participation in deliberative mini-publics” [Equality by Lot]. Summarizing a “highly cited” paper by Vincent Jacquet, a handy […]
LikeLike
[…] Explaining non-participation in deliberative mini-publics” [Equality by Lot]. Summarizing a “highly cited” paper by Vincent Jacquet, a handy […]
LikeLike
[…] Explaining non-participation in deliberative mini-publics” [Equality by Lot]. Summarizing a “highly cited” paper by Vincent Jacquet, a handy […]
LikeLike
[…] argument against sortition that is fairly common among academics is that allotted bodies are not representative because the acceptance rates […]
LikeLike