In an opinion piece, Agnès Le Brun, regional councilor and former mayor of Morlaix, shares her perspective on participatory democracy as practiced through citizens’ conventions.
They present themselves as the miracle cure for a weary democracy, the supposedly “sweet” remedy to reconcile citizens with public decision-making. Citizens’ conventions, with their reliance on sortition and participatory deliberation, are appealing because of their promise: to bring “real life” into the world of political decision-making. But behind this veneer of democratic innovation too often lies a carefully cultivated illusion, one that harms democracy as much as it claims to revitalize it.
The first pitfall is the pretense of participation. These mechanisms are presented as a break with traditional institutions. In reality, behind a supposedly depoliticized staging of the debate, the agenda is set from above, the topics are framed, and the conclusions are rarely taken seriously by those who commissioned them.
The perennial issue of decentralization, a quintessentially Breton topic, and Loïg Chesnais-Girard’s campaign promises, diluted over time, have led the President of the Brittany Region to propose a citizens’ convention in 2026, supposedly to address the subject in the most democratic way possible. Really? Sortition is primarily a convenient pretext for circumventing elections and allows for the maintenance of the illusion of representativeness. Because a few dozen Bretons are chosen at random, the claim is that “the people” are being heard.
But a sample, however diverse, does not replace the pluralism that only elections guarantee: a confrontation of visions, accountability to the voters, and a clear political decision. This “mini-people” is not the people, and claiming otherwise weakens popular sovereignty instead of strengthening it.
The bottom line is that these conventions, as we have seen in the past at the national level — the climate change convention, the end-of-life convention — often serve as a convenient smokescreen. They are convened when those in power don’t want to make a decision or take responsibility: “The convention has spoken,” so we implement it — or, even more cynically, we do nothing but wax poetic about “listening attentively.” This is democracy by outsourcing: we delegate the debate but not the decision. We replace a political choice with a carefully orchestrated, media-driven pseudo-consensus. Because, ultimately, what matters in this new world is communication.
Democracy, admittedly ailing, doesn’t need gimmicks or sugar-coated solutions to mask a lack of courage. It needs informed citizens, open debate, institutions that listen and connect with the pulse of daily life, but also elected officials who decide, explain, and are accountable.
Citizen participation should enrich political discourse, not absolve those elected from the responsibility of making and taking responsibility for decisions. Reinventing civic engagement and trust is more than necessary, but this will not be achieved through episodic, highly orchestrated, sincere and careful in appearance but in fact demagogic, devices. Rather, it will require a sustained investment in education for debate, curiosity, and tolerance of differing opinions, fostering critical thinking and genuine engagement. This is what allows us to avoid falling for clever schemes.
Filed under: Applications, Deliberation, Elections, Press, 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 Social media sites like tok, instagram etc are informational candy for the fast brain, then Citizen deliberations are going to the gym.
Such civic deliberations engage the higher functioning slow brain. They are a source of depolarization. Their results can be communicated far and wide and help inform the wider pluralistic conversation.
The author says citizens need to learn and educate themselves about topics. That is precisely what minipublics do. A group can learn about a topic deeply and provide important insights and arguments that are helpful to all. They certainly don’t hinder democracy!
I agree that they are not currently used to make decisions but they can provide civic community judgements and if their results are communicated and shown to be ignored then voters can punish those electeds who ignore the results of citizen assemblies at the ballot box.
There’s no substitute for having many wider conversations which is why I think there should be many parallel permanent citizen assemblies in every ward/constituency in the nation. That increases the number of minipublics by two orders of magnitude. I imagine if theres always a handful of citizens available, like a jury, for every member of congress/parliament who could render localized judgements on any topic the mp wants. A personal sounding board for that elected.
there would be a much higher chance for everyone to engage locally. Such a group could actually read bills Abd tell MPs how to vote, while MPs are hunting for campaign funds to fight their next election. Such a group could discuss with each other and experts and be available to advise elected representatives on local public perspectives. Essentially such a jury acts like a counter balance to lobbyists, creating a voice in the ear of every elected person. The group would rotate on a topic by topic basis and so the local citizenry could engage locally with the juries who could host public sessions in panels and town halls on behalf of the mp. Act as a pluralistic interface – a layer of public debate of slow brain, non Ai generated content.
The elected wouldn’t have to listen if they don’t want to. They can take local advice under advisement. Like a king seeking advice from a range of courtiers . But woe betide any elected that ignored such a civic jury too many times!
Get Outlook for iOShttps://aka.ms/o0ukef
LikeLike
I think a sensible rejoinder would respond to her specific criticisms of CAs (most of which I would agree with), although it’s certainly true that they are an educational forum for the tiny number of citizens that participate.
LikeLike
“The first pitfall is the pretense of participation.”
I would confidently argue that participation in a CA actually provides a citizen with more participation in governance decisions than merely uninformed voting every X years – it’s not merely “a pretense”.
“a confrontation of visions” comes from a diversity of lived experiences and perspectives, not from a small group of similarly-minded individuals – for example, members of a political Party.
I would love to hear sogent arguments explaining why randomly-selected citizens are less representative than elected candidates who have decided that they have the circumstances (education, social status, confidence, wealth, thick skin) to put themselves forward as a candidate.
LikeLike
>I would confidently argue that participation in a CA actually provides a citizen with more participation in governance decisions than merely uninformed voting every X years
Sure, but what about the vast majority of citizens who don’t get to participate?
>I would love to hear cogent arguments explaining why randomly-selected citizens are less representative than elected candidates
Because the latter offer (competing) representative claims that voters select between. I do wish participants on this forum would acknowledge that representation comes in a variety or shapes and forms (read Pitkin) and that descriptive representation is just one variant. When you chose a lawyer to represent your interests, criteria like wealth and social status are heuristics for competence. When it comes to politicians we need a wider range of discourses, and there is no necessary connection to the personal attributes of the representative. New Yorkers elected Zohran Mamdani (who had a privileged background and education) on account of the discourses that he represented.
LikeLike
And how will “democracy” (i.e., the electoralist regime) come to possess all those fine heart-warming things that it needs? Presumably if one continues writing inspiring earnest op-eds, all those fine attributes will inevitably materialize.
Of course, a steady stream of such inspiring earnest messages has been flowing in newspapers, books, classrooms, TV shows, academic papers and every other form of media for decades if not centuries. But surely if we just persist just a little longer, just a little bit longer, then the ideal electoralist regime is going to appear over the horizon. Soon, really soon. (Or it may take some time because change takes time and revolutions inevitably lead to disasters.)
LikeLike
What a facile and aggravating argument our correspondent has. Some perfectly valid criticisms of citizen assemblies therefore, stick with electoral democracy against which one could mount more valid criticisms.
And then the lame “It needs informed citizens, open debate, institutions that listen and connect with the pulse of daily life, but also elected officials who decide, explain, and are accountable.”
All with nary a word about what institutional changes might be made to bring this about.
Sheesh.
LikeLiked by 1 person