Citizens' Assemblies: A (Very) Cautionary Note

It's both encouraging and depressing at the same time to see the emerging debate on the role of citizens’ assemblies as a tool for advancing democracy in New Zealand. Encouraging because the habit of public debate about the elements of democracy has languished here for far too long.

Depressing because the case for citizens’ assemblies is being pushed by advocates who themselves wish to play a prominent role in enabling citizens’ assemblies and are ignoring or simply unaware of the complexities and limitations of the citizens’ assembly approach. The promotion of Ireland's experience as something to aspire to is a very good example.

Much of the representation in New Zealand of the Irish experience has come from people who have a vested interest as current or potential practitioners in the field of citizens’ assemblies. None of them appear aware of the definitive peer-reviewed research on the Irish experience which produces a much more critical assessment, and highlights many of the difficulties and challenges which are simply not forming part of the public discussion here. Those who are interested in a dispassionate evidence-based assessment of the Irish experience should check out "citizens assemblies for referendums and constitutional reforms: is an "Irish model" for deliberative democracy?" available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpos.2020.591983/full

One of the major limitations which it’s very important to understand is that citizens’ assemblies are primarily a means of providing a robust and verified understanding of current public opinion on specific and often politically controversial issue, not a tool for shifting public opinion. The review of the Irish experience itself strongly suggests the author’s assessment is the findings from the citizens’ assemblies on marriage equality and abortion reflected what was already fundamentally the view of the Irish community, a view which was not yet in the public sphere because politicians (and the Catholic Church) were well behind the position which most of the public had arrived at.

Go into a citizens’ assembly on the assumption it will provide a means of shifting public opinion and you will almost certainly be disappointed. A colleague of mine at the University of Zürich has been leading work in Switzerland on citizens’ assemblies for a number of years. His first major project was to oversee citizens’ assemblies within the Canton of Zürich to address the issue of climate change. Environmentalists were delighted when the Canton decided to take this initiative. Politicians were going to be pushed out of the way and the public’s voice could be heard.

Following what was a very robust process the outcome of citizens’ assembly deliberations absolutely supported opposition to climate change initiatives despite the evidence placed before the assembly. The assembly simply made manifest the extent to which Zürich’s communities were anti-climate change.

New Zealanders should be very wary of any suggestion that citizens’ assemblies will change or lead public opinion. Where they are useful, as with the Irish assemblies which considered marriage equality and legalising abortion or Melbourne City Council’s citizens’ assembly on its 2015-2025 long-term plan, is providing legitimation for decisions which politicians generally recognise they should take but are reluctant to do so because of a fear there would be a public backlash.

The history of citizens’ assemblies, when closely examined, is a powerful case against the use of a citizens’ assembly to consider any aspect of Te Tiriti. It seems virtually certain that, regardless of the quality of the evidence presented to such an citizens’ assembly, the outcome would reflect current beliefs/prejudices rather than the enlightened outcome which proponents of such an assembly seem to believe would result. There is of course also the nature of Te Tiriti as a contract between the crown and Tangata Whenua, another and in practice a more serious reason why a citizens’ assembly would be quite inappropriate.

Some concluding remarks. First, citizens’ assemblies are often presented as a form of deliberative democracy. In this writer’s view that description is quite misleading. Although in statistical terms a well chosen citizens’ assembly should reflect the composition of the population at large it lacks any democratic connection with or accountability to the citizenry as a whole. Essential to any process qualifying as an element of democracy is that the demos – the people - are able to recognise their voice and feel a sense of involvement, something not possible with the citizens’ assembly process.

Instead, citizens assemblies’ should be recognised for what they are, a useful tool for determining where the weight of public opinion lies in what may often be a very contested environment - in Ireland the weight of religious tradition; in Melbourne’s consideration of its long-term plan for well funded and very vocal opposition from groups such as major property developers.

Next, enthusiasts for deliberative democracy should start from the position adopted by the Carnegie UK trust, one of the world’s leading think tanks/researchers on well-being. The trust recognises four key well-being domains one of which is democratic well-being described as “we all have a voice in decisions that affect us”. Both the research evidence and the practical tools which have been developed in a number of jurisdictions demonstrate how feasible promoting genuine deliberative democracy - democratic well-being - can be. Hidden in there somewhere may be the inspiration for a 2024 New Year’s resolution!