Presentation within the Roundtable “Mechanisms of Participatory Democracy as a Response to the Crisis of Democracy in the 21st Century”
Within the concept of deliberative democracy, the focus is placed on “deliberative forms of mini-publics” as the primary mechanism for direct citizen participation in politics. The variations in the use of this mechanism are very similar, with differences mainly restricted to naming conventions; in our region, the term “citizens’ assemblies” has taken root. Additionally, there are citizens’ panels, participatory budgeting, and others.
Deliberative forms of mini-publics are so named because they inherently center on the process of deliberation as their most significant element. The process of deliberation is grounded in discussion. There are three groups of participants: a) citizens, b) experts, and c) politicians. The key assumptions are that citizens must first receive the necessary information about the topic under discussion and become familiar with all existing opinions in the public sphere regarding that topic. Neutral experts do not exist; they are always aligned with a particular side or hypothesis. Deliberative forms usually last 2–3 days (with the exception of participatory budgeting at the local level in Germany, which traditionally lasts up to 7 days), meaning that citizens are enabled to come to the same location and engage in mutual discussion, exchanging views and arguments after hearing everything relevant to the topic. The discussion must maintain a certain level of decorum—to prevent, for example, personal insults—making some form of moderation necessary. The final phase of the process is drafting recommendations, which involves citizens, experts, and politicians together. The latter two groups usually confront citizens with practical constraints, such as the amount of available budget funds. Nevertheless, it can be said that citizens create recommendations and policies, while the framework is provided by politicians and experts.
The selection of participating citizens is based on a sample of the population affected by the topic at hand (random selection). A mini-public is a scaled-down representation of the entire public that ought to be consulted. In the literature, such mechanisms are often called deliberative and participatory democratic innovations.
What sets deliberative forms of mini-publics apart from other institutions is that they are formed on an ad hocbasis for a specific issue.
Deliberative mechanisms can vary in their degree of authority. They are either organized as an experiment to gauge citizens’ attitudes on a topic, or their conclusions carry the weight of recommendations for politicians, or those conclusions may even be binding during decision-making and regulation drafting by public authorities.
How do deliberative forms of mini-publics differ from direct and participatory democracy? Precisely in that deliberation assumes participants have the opportunity to inform themselves and discuss issues with one another before making decisions. In contrast, a referendum, for example, is based on the aggregation of preferences formed earlier in exogenous processes (where media influence is significant). Deliberative democracy insists on the endogenous formation of preferences through communication and the exchange of differing opinions within a “mini-public.”
This is particularly important in authoritarian societies where a genuine public sphere does not exist. Free media are absent, and citizens cannot receive objective information or witness the juxtaposition of opposing views. Organizing a referendum under such circumstances yields results that merely mirror the dominant narratives in state-controlled media. Referendums are organized only when it suits the authorities, with an outcome known in advance.
When examining the rules governing the organization of deliberative forms of mini-publics, one can conclude that democracy ought to function in this manner. Deliberative democracy, with its innovative models, emerges as a response to the crisis of traditional representative democracy.
Research has shown that through deliberative forms of mini-publics, people develop tolerance for differing opinions and viewpoints. They not only gain a better understanding of others but also a clearer grasp of their own positions. While they will not always agree, they come to accept opposing viewpoints as legitimate. All of this is vital in the context of the global polarization of citizenry—a dynamic that suits political elites, who believe it makes acquiring or retaining power easier. Simple frameworks are offered, keeping citizens in a state of information deficit and binary, “for-against” and “us-versus-them” thinking.
Mechanisms of deliberative democracy restore a political culture that has been eroded over time through successive crises, as well as the rise of populism and polarization. Institutions are opened up, and a culture of dialogue is learned.
This approach also yields more competent policies, as citizens best understand their own needs, particularly at the local level. Subsequently, these policies prove easier to implement and more efficient. Challenges in creating effective policies exist in all countries, especially when policies are formulated top-down without considering the local context; deliberative forms of mini-publics resolve this issue.
Furthermore, deliberative forms of mini-publics can prove highly beneficial in the future for making long-term, rational political decisions. For instance, governments in any country are often reluctant to adopt more drastic—yet indisputably necessary—measures regarding climate change due to fear of citizen backlash and electoral losses, while the benefits remain distant and unrealized during their term in office. Conversely, randomly selected citizens who remain anonymous and serve only as temporary members of a citizens’ assembly occupy a much better and freer position to make unpopular decisions that everyone knows must eventually be made.
Deliberative models in Serbia are not yet institutionalized at the state level, nor has such an initiative ever originated from public authorities. Projects organizing deliberative forms of mini-publics have been conducted several times as experiments by segments of the academic community and civil society. By contrast, in other parts of the world, such democratic practices have been institutionalized. In Italy, for example, several regions require the establishment of deliberative institutions prior to adopting budgets or deciding on major local issues, mandating that citizens’ recommendations gathered through this process be taken into account by governing bodies. Similarly, after 15 years of experimentation with citizens’ assemblies and panels, the European Union introduced a requirement to implement deliberative forms of mini-publics in specific areas—most notably climate change—before making decisions at the community level.