Citizens’ assemblies: miracle cure, or much ado about nothing? 

Is British democracy working? Surveys show that satisfaction with democracy in the UK has nosedived since 2021. This should not be surprising: in our system of ‘popular rule’, all we do is cast votes every few years, with no way to intervene as our basic public services continue to struggle. What if we put the people back into the process of running our country, to make government more responsive to popular concerns? Citizens’ assemblies are one way of doing this. Ongoing research at the International Centre for Sustainability suggests that we should make more use of them in the UK: they can cut through thorny moral issues, provide objective information to the public and show consensus. Yet being difficult to get right, they are no miracle cure. 

Why get the public involved in the first place? 

Citizens’ assemblies bring together a randomly selected sample of citizens to learn about an issue, deliberate on it and make recommendations. Some believe they can “work wonders” and restore trust in politics. By bringing citizens into the political process, citizens’ assemblies can give people the skills and desire to participate more, making them more invested in how our society is run. They enable us to give direction to our representatives on key issues and review what they do for us, without being dragged into party politics. For those who say that this simply isn’t how we do democracy in the UK, we should look beyond our borders: India, for example, has a long-standing tradition of citizen deliberation at village level, through a rural assembly called a gram sabha. 

What are the benefits of citizens’ assemblies? 

There are four good reasons to use citizens’ assemblies: 

1. They can help to resolve morally controversial issues. 
2. They can provide an objective information base for public votes. 
3. They can help to articulate consensus for major changes. 
4. They can be used at local levels to drive regeneration projects. 

This is shown from experience within and outside the UK. In Ireland, a citizens’ assembly was used to recommend the removal of constitutional provisions prohibiting abortion. More recently, an assembly in Jersey on assisted dying made recommendations that are now being translated into law. This is especially relevant to the rest of the UK, with Bills recently introduced into the Scottish Parliament and the House of Lords on the matter. Parts of the Irish Assembly were broadcast live, giving the public vital information for their vote in a 2018 referendum on the matter – a far cry from the UK’s experience with Brexit in 2016. The Irish example also shows how citizens’ assemblies can articulate a social consensus out of a public desire for reform – an encouraging sign for issues such as House of Lords reform. The citizens’ assembly model has also been successfully transposed into local contexts (often termed a ‘citizens’ jury’), with deliberative exercises in Romsey (2018) and Newham (2021) shaping local policy on town centre usage and developing green spaces respectively. 

Where have citizens’ assemblies not worked? 

The worldwide practice of citizens’ assemblies demonstrates three potential issues: 

1. A remit that is too broad. 
2. No clear pathway to influence elected politicians. 
3. Self-selection of those who are already politically engaged. 

Our research has found that assemblies which tried to solve too many issues at once – such as the Climate Assembly UK (2020) and the French Citizens’ Convention on the Climate (2019-2020) – were much less successful because they produced general principles and wants rather than specific proposals. They have also been much more effective in influencing policy change when set up by local councils than by parliamentary select committees or external research organisations (such as in a recent citizens’ jury on assisted dying). Yet there is a balance to be struck: where government at all levels is involved, the experts who inform citizens must remain independent. Moreover, because there is no compulsion for invited citizens to actually participate, there is the risk of ‘self-selection’ of those who are already politically engaged or interested in an issue. Emerging technology – such as AI-facilitated online deliberation, as in Taiwan – could address some of these issues. 

Why do we need them when we already have the UK Parliament? 

Some might say that we don’t need innovation, because we already have a citizens’ assembly in the UK: it is just known as ‘the UK Parliament’. Yet the devil is in the details. A randomly selected sample of citizens, stratified for demographics, will be more representative than the House of Commons (especially considering the cost of parliamentary campaigns). There is no political party representation in a citizens’ assembly. The stakes are also different: the UK Parliament passing legislation creates a finality absent from the advisory – yet potentially powerful – recommendations of a citizens’ assembly. The ‘learning phase’ crucial to citizens’ assemblies, where subject-matter experts share important background information, has no parallel in the parliamentary process. The UK Parliament is undoubtedly an assembly of citizens, but a citizens’ assembly it is not.  

The path to democratic reform 

There is no doubt that there are other pressing issues to solve in British democracy – our disproportionate electoral system, a lack of effective checks and balances on government and the role of the House of Lords. These all need considered discussion, but that should not stop us from experimenting elsewhere. Citizens’ assemblies, if designed well, can cut through complexity, provide citizens with clear and objective information and crystallise consensus on policy at local, regional and national levels.