Presentation within the Roundtable “Possibility of Introducing a Proportional Electoral System with Direct Candidate Voting in Serbia: Advantages and Disadvantages”
From the perspective of participatory and deliberative democracy, it is unclear why such significant emphasis is placed on the electoral system within discussions on political system reform. Given all the criticisms associated with political parties and elections, relying on such a minor adjustment seems misplaced. While personalizing the electoral system represents a positive step that may introduce some movement, significant effects will remain unattainable as long as the system as a whole persists in its current form.
Empirical research confirms that citizens desire a more direct connection with their representatives. However, the overwhelming majority remain unaware of the current electoral system in Serbia and lack basic knowledge in this field. Public awareness regarding the electoral process is exceptionally low, as is trust in electoral processes and institutions. Ultimately, citizen interest in participating in politics is equally low. While this issue extends beyond Serbia and increasingly affects consolidated democracies, the situation in our context is far more severe. Consequently, electoral system reform cannot serve as the primary catalyst for increasing citizen participation in political decision-making.
This condition does not constitute a critique of citizens themselves; responsibility lies with public institutions and the political developments of the past 30 years. Current procedures for citizen inclusion in political life remain entirely ambiguous and non-transparent. They are also uncertain, offering no guarantees that the popular will will be respected. This applies not only to elections but also to instruments of direct democracy. Without defined procedures governing participation and debate in political processes, democratic resolution of systemic issues remains impossible.
A deeper examination of the personalization of politics—specifically the desire of citizens for direct representation—raises questions regarding what expectations they hold for individual representatives. Research responses often extend beyond standard definitions of democratic representation: citizens frequently seek specific individuals to secure clientelistic favors from those they elected.
Furthermore, studies demonstrate that political parties in Serbia lack internal democratic mechanisms to govern organizational relations and operations. Naïvely expecting such parties to reform the electoral system counter to the interests of central party leadership—or assuming seamless functionality following potential reform—is unwarranted.
The central premise of participatory and deliberative approaches is that citizens must be provided dedicated spaces for direct engagement in democracy and politics. “Schools of democracy” are required to build citizen knowledge, capacity, and engagement. When participation is restricted to casting a ballot once every four years, citizens inevitably feel disillusionment regarding representation and efficacy. Only participatory models can restore citizens to the political arena. Within deliberative democracy frameworks, “deliberative forms of mini-publics” have increasingly gained prominence. Among these models, Citizens’ Assemblies—where participants deliberate on key public issues—are most frequently referenced.
The initial step in organizing a Citizens’ Assembly involves constructing a representative sample of the population residing within the relevant territory and subject area based on statistical criteria such as geographic distribution, gender, and age. This sample may be adjusted depending on the specific policy domain or to overrepresent minority groups where necessary (“oversampling”). Selected individuals are then invited to participate. Experts and politicians prepare briefing materials to serve as the initial basis for discussion, introducing participants to essential facts, representative viewpoints, and policy options. Citizens subsequently participate in scheduled deliberations following an established framework, yielding conclusions that carry varying degrees of authority for political actors.
Citizens’ Assemblies are widely utilized across European Union member states, primarily at local and regional levels. The EU itself has signaled plans to institutionalize this direct participation model, though specifications regarding policy domains and whether outcomes will serve consultative functions or constitute binding recommendations for decision-makers remain to be defined. In Italy—most notably in Tuscany—convening Citizens’ Assemblies is mandatory prior to major policy decisions. Across jurisdictions, Citizens’ Assemblies are rapidly transitioning from experimental pilots to established institutions.
A notable example includes the Citizens’ Assemblies recently conducted in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Initiated by the Special Representative of the European Union, the process focused on constitutional reform and electoral system amendments. Held over two days, the assembly comprised a representative sample of 57 members divided into seven working groups. Following internal discussions, groups presented proposals during plenary sessions where experts evaluated feasibility and potential unintended consequences. Groups subsequently reconvened to formulate final recommendations, producing substantive and encouraging outcomes.
An additional application involves political parties utilizing this model internally to engage broader membership, particularly when deciding programmatic platforms. Intra-party democracy serves as a vital school of democracy, offering citizens genuine influence rather than limiting their role to quadrennial voting.
If the baseline assumption is that the public remains largely disengaged or uninformed regarding politics, Citizens’ Assemblies provide a structured institution that enables participants to become informed while offering guarantees that their preferences will inform political decisions. While Citizens’ Assemblies cannot resolve every systemic issue, no single reform holds that capacity.