Citizens' Assemblies
"Our constitution is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the whole people." - Pericles
When we hear the word 'democracy', we think of electing representatives who are affiliated to a political party. Yet for much of history it has not been that way.
The concept of democracy is to hold governments accountable to the people. People are in favour of that, but politicians and parties are not held in similarly high regard.
[Chart of popularity of democracy, politicians, and parties]
I had never heard of Citizens' Assemblies before hearing Hélène Landemore on one of my favourite podcasts called "Radical". The idea is fleshed out in her book "Politics without politicians". I am convinced we should incorporate Citizens’ Assemblies into our political decision-making process and Today’s blog is about laying out the arguments to you.
What is a Citizens' Assembly?
A group of citizens is selected at random, with the composition constructed to broadly reflect the demographics of the wider population (this is called sortition). Think here having the right age brackets, appropriate regional, gender, wealth representation as the electorate as a whole.
The assembly of random citizens then learn about an issue in detail. They will hear from people on both sides, experts, campaigners and people directly impacted by the issue.
Then the hard work begins. Assembly members discuss the issue and debate it with one another. The aim of all this, is for the assembly to arrive at a recommendation. The recommendation is then used to inform Parliament or to go to referendum.
My immediate reaction on hearing about Citizens' Assemblies was that this sounds risky but the underlying principle is familiar to us all in jury service. Ordinary citizens, properly selected, informed and given time to debate, can exercise sound collective judgement on difficult questions.
If we already trust randomly selected citizens with decisions about another person’s liberty, can citizens contribute meaningfully to decisions about the future of their country?
Citizens' Assemblies is not a new idea
What surprised me most was that the principle behind Citizens’ Assemblies is much older than our system of elected representatives.
2,500 years ago in Ancient Athens citizens participated directly in political decisions, and selection by lottery was central to how government worked. The Council of 500, which prepared business for the main assembly, was selected at random. Many public offices were filled in the same way. Ordinary citizens took turns governing. Athenian democracy
Use of lotteries feels radical today. Is it so strange for political responsibility to be shared widely, rather than reserved for politicians.
Once you start looking, history is full of bringing people together to deliberate, resolve disputes and make decisions. The big variation is how people earned their seat.
Indian panchayats brings together respected elders
Native American assemblies were selected by clan mothers
Anglo-Saxon England had moots.
Are Citizens' assemblies experiencing a renaissance?
Citizens' assemblies are become increasingly common. Ireland's debates on same-sex marriage and abortion is probably the most famous recent example. The topics were discussed and then the proposals went to referendum.
Elsewhere France has used them on climate policy and Belgium has experimented with permanent variations of this.
Which problems might this solve today?
Taking Ireland as a case study, Citizens' Assemblies might be a playbook for difficult long-term cultural issues, where the answer is a question of moral judgment and trade-offs.
Politicians really struggles on making hard decisions because they are likely to upset loud opposition. In the US, UK and France right now, the state is paying out consistently more than it takes in. People get annoyed with tax rises, and those in receipt of benefits feel aggrieved when it is reduced or taken away. The result is burgeoning debt.
I think the problems Citizens' Assemblies solves is deeper than any one issue. It may renew some faith in the system as a whole:
It improves representation. Politicians tend to be skewed from richer, more influential places. This brings ordinary people back into the mix.
It helps tackle distrust. It brings the feeling that people without party affiliations can debate the issues on their own merits and hold judgment without pressure groups or funders steering them.
They may be particularly useful for questions politicians have incentives to avoid because it cannot be resolved in one Parliament. These tend to be ones that matter more: Debt, infrastructure, housing, foreign policy, immigration, defence etc etc
It's my view that ordinary citizens are capable of understanding surprisingly complex problems when given adequate time and information. They are probably more likely to understand everyday issues that some of the politicians and they will give you a good sense check of whether this will sit well with a broad selection of people.
So what?
Politicians are asked to make difficult long-term choices and then punished at the next election.
Citizens’ Assemblies deserve a place in our system. Give ordinary people the time to understand a problem, confront the trade-offs and recommend a way forward. This can then be voted on by the people or advised to Parliament.
Juries do and history has successfully used this model, perhaps this is the idea that can help us get past electoral polarisation.
Next week's blog will be "Intuition revisited". As always get the blog delivered directly to your inbox on Home | Deciders | for mental fitness | change your mind.
Comments