{"id":23500,"date":"2022-09-09T14:44:19","date_gmt":"2022-09-09T21:44:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/?p=23500"},"modified":"2022-09-09T14:44:21","modified_gmt":"2022-09-09T21:44:21","slug":"citizens-assemblies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/2022\/09\/09\/citizens-assemblies\/","title":{"rendered":"CITIZENS\u2019 ASSEMBLIES"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Part of the Politics series<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
DEMOCRACY<\/a><\/strong><\/th><\/tr>
History<\/a>Theory<\/a>Criticism<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
show<\/a>Types<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
show<\/a>Related topics<\/td><\/tr>
<\/a> Politics portal<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
v<\/abbr><\/a>t<\/abbr><\/a>e<\/abbr><\/a><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Extinction Rebellion<\/a> Solidarity with the French Citizens Assembly on Climate<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A citizens\u2019 assembly<\/strong> (also known as citizens\u2019 jury<\/strong> or citizens\u2019 panel<\/strong> or people\u2019s jury<\/strong> or policy jury<\/strong> or citizens\u2019 initiative review<\/strong> or consensus conference<\/strong> or citizens\u2019 convention<\/strong>) is a body formed from randomly selected citizens<\/a> to deliberate on important issues.[1]<\/a><\/sup>[2]<\/a><\/sup>[3]<\/a><\/sup>[4]<\/a><\/sup>[5]<\/a><\/sup>[6]<\/a><\/sup>[7]<\/a><\/sup>[8]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is a mechanism of participatory action research<\/a> (PAR) that draws on the symbolism, and some of the practices, of a trial by jury<\/a>.[9]<\/a><\/sup> The purpose is to recruit a cross-section of the public to study the selected issues. Information is presented to provide a common set of facts, available options are considered and recommendations are forwarded to the appropriate authority. Some states implement only those recommendations approved in a subsequent referendum<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Assemblies aim to increase public trust in the convening government[10]<\/a><\/sup> by remedying the \u201cdivergence of interests\u201d that arises between elected representatives and the electorate, as well as \u201ca lack in deliberation in legislatures.\u201d[11]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The use of assemblies is related to the traditions of deliberative democracy<\/a> and popular sovereignty<\/a> in political theory<\/a>. While these traditions originated in Athenian democracy<\/a>, they have become newly relevant both to theorists and politicians as part of a deliberative turn in democratic theory. This turn began in the 1980s, shifting from the predominant theoretical framework of participatory democracy<\/a> toward deliberative democracy<\/a>, initially in the work of Jane Mansbridge<\/a> and Joseph M. Bessette.[12]<\/a><\/sup> Assemblies have been used in countries such as Canada<\/a> and the Netherlands<\/a> to deliberate for example, on the system used to elect politicians<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ordinarily, assemblies are state initiatives. However, independent assemblies, such as the Le G1000<\/a> in Belgium or the We The Citizens<\/a> project in Ireland have convened. The People\u2019s Parliament<\/a> was a UK forum of randomly selected citizens presented as a television program. Citizen\u2019s Assemblies have now been convened on a global<\/a> level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Assemblies have been proposed as a potential solution to dealing with divisive and highly politicised issues such as same-sex marriage<\/a>, abortion<\/a>, Brexit<\/a>, and decarbonisation<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Defining features<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Membership<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Selecting and managing members is integral to fulfilling the assembly\u2019s goal. Some of the components are described below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Selection<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Quasi-random selection or sortition<\/a> is used to ensure that a representative spectrum of the population is included.[13]<\/a><\/sup> Elections<\/a> by contrast overrepresent variously advantaged citizens.[14]<\/a><\/sup> Random selection is recommended on the grounds of equality, cost efficiency, and representativeness.[15]<\/a><\/sup> Selection is only quasi-random, due to the additional variables of self-selection and deliberate over-representation of specific groups.[16]<\/a><\/sup> People cannot be forced to participate, and those who opt out may share characteristics that render the resulting group less than representative. To prevent this, quotas can be established to restore the balance.[16]<\/a><\/sup> Random selection in governance has historic significance and was first implemented in the Athenian democracy and various European communities.[10]<\/a><\/sup>[14]<\/a><\/sup>[15]<\/a><\/sup>[17]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Term limits<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Regular turnover of representatives is a requisite: Participants serve for a limited time. This standard is critical to maintaining viewpoint diversity in the long term and avoiding sorting the assembly into in-groups and out-groups that bias the result. Absent term limits, the assembly may become homogenous or turn to private interest, losing sight of the common good.[10]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Size<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The size of a citizens\u2019 assembly must be large enough to capture a representative cross-section of the population.[16]<\/a><\/sup> The size depends on the purpose, demographics, and population size of the community. Assemblies are typically relatively small for ease of management and to ensure active participation among all members.[10]<\/a><\/sup> Assemblies typically consist of between 50 and 200 citizens.[18]<\/a><\/sup> In Ireland, the 2012-14 Convention on the Constitution was composed of 66 citizens, 33 representatives chosen by political parties, and a chairperson;[19]<\/a><\/sup> Ireland\u2019s subsequent recurring Assembly<\/a> recruited 99 citizens reflecting the country\u2019s demographic diversity, and appointed an expert chairperson.[20]<\/a><\/sup> The 2019-20 Citizens\u2019 Assembly of Scotland<\/a> consists of 100 citizens.[21]<\/a><\/sup> The 2020 Citizens\u2019 Climate Assembly UK consists of 110 members.[22]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Functions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The function of a citizen\u2019s assembly has no a priori<\/em> limits. Though assemblies have been historically limited to proposals concerning electoral reform, the purpose of an assembly could be anything that relates to governing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Proposal power versus decision-making power<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Modern assemblies propose rather than enact. Assembly proposals are enacted by the corresponding authority. Sometimes a proposal is sent to the general electorate as a referendum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Procedure<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Deliberation<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

A city council deliberating in 1636.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A key component of assemblies is their deliberative nature. Deliberation allows for the education of participants, who may be uninformed on the specific issue of interest. Assemblies typically provide access to experts, including politicians, analysts, scientists and other subject-matter experts<\/a>. By incorporating the views, information and arguments of experts and then asking the participants to engage in collaborative discussion, assemblies aim to educate the participants, and produce a vote or result representative of the educated public interest. Deliberation allows for representation of the common person while attempting to mitigate misinformation, ignorance, and apathy.[citation needed<\/a><\/em>]<\/sup> Initiatives such as deliberative polling<\/a> attempt to utilize this benefit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Parkinson argues that the intent of deliberation is to \u201creplace power plays and political tantrums with \u2018the mild voice of reason’\u201d. Deliberation attempts to marry procedural effectiveness with substantive outcomes. Parkinson continues that the process reframes \u201cpolitical legitimacy<\/a>\u201d as involving \u201cnot just doing things right, but doing the right things\u201d.[23]<\/a><\/sup> This view contrasts with the purely procedural account of legitimacy<\/a>, of which Rawls<\/a> says \u201cthere is a correct or fair procedure such that the outcome is likewise correct or fair, whatever it is, provided the procedure has been followed properly.\u201d[24]<\/a><\/sup> While deliberation is itself a procedure, it deliberately incorporates factual information, and thus broadens the consideration of legitimacy<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Agenda-setting<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Agenda-setting refers to establishing a plan for the substantive issues that the assembly is to consider. In major examples of assemblies, such as those in British Columbia<\/a> and Ontario<\/a>, the legislature set the agenda before the assemblies were convened. However, Dahl<\/a> asserts that final control over agendas is an essential component of an ideal democracy: \u201cthe body of citizens\u2026should have the exclusive control to determine what matters are or are not to be decided.\u201d[25]<\/a><\/sup> This problem remains unresolved, as both agendas imposed from outside or from a small internal body limit the participants\u2019 scope. While the petition process theoretically extends the agenda-setting process to all citizens, petition gathering mechanics may be burdensome. Fishkin<\/a> writes \u201cThe equal opportunity is formal and symbolic, while effective final control is exercised by those who can finance the signature gatherers.\u201d[26]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Decision<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

At some point, the assembly must conclude its deliberations and offer conclusions and recommendations. This is typically done in a voting process. The use of secret ballots<\/a> is intended to reduce the impact of peer pressure<\/a> and to control social comparison<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

History<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The term \u201ccitizens\u2019 jury\u201d was coined in the late 1980s by the Jefferson Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota<\/a>. To identify a site for a recycling plant, a group of twelve people was selected as though they were going to serve on a jury<\/a>. They were taken on a guided tour of the county and introduced to experts in various fields. After sufficient education, they were asked to choose the site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They had developed the process in 1974 as a \u201ccitizens\u2019 committee\u201d, but decided to create and trademark the new name in order to protect the process from commercialization. The practice of citizens\u2019 juries has thus been regulated in the US. Virtually the same process was created in Germany in the early 1970s; American Ned Crosby and German Peter Dienel said that they did not learn of each other\u2019s work until 1985.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Britain, the process spread rapidly because of a publication by the Institute for Public Policy Research<\/a> in 1994. Citizens\u2019 juries have been conducted in different ways, with different objectives, and with varying success.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As with much PAR, controversy surrounds the topic of what constitutes good practice or professionalism<\/a> in the area of public consultation. Lacking the methodological self-regulation that exists in some PAR areas, or the legal sanctions available to the owners of the US brand, practitioners elsewhere are free to use whatever label they wish. Others used all three elements, adopting names such as community x-change, consensus conferences, citizen\u2019s councils, deliberative focus groups or, most commonly, citizens\u2019 panels.[27]<\/a><\/sup> Participants\u2019 roles once an assembly has taken place vary from nothing to helping implement their recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

People\u2019s juries have been hailed as a benefit in a democracy, the jury\u2019s vote is not likely to be representative of the views of the general population.[28]<\/a><\/sup> Because a people\u2019s jury is making an informed judgement, it is unlike a referendum<\/a>, where the views of the least informed or ill-informed carry equal weight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Examples<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Assemblies have been used in British Columbia<\/a> and Ontario<\/a> (2006), in the Netherlands<\/a> (2006), in the Republic of Ireland<\/a> (2016), Poland<\/a> (2016) and the United Kingdom<\/a> (2019 onwards). The assemblies in Canada and the Netherlands dealt with the question of electoral reform. In each case, citizens were selected through a semi-random process that ensured geographic and demographic balance. Participation was voluntary. Invitations were sent out randomly to those on the electoral register. The final participants were selected from those who responded in a manner that ensured a proportional representation of people from different places and backgrounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Global Assembly<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Main article: Global Assembly<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Global Assembly was organised in 2021 to coincide with the COP26<\/a> in Glasgow<\/a> in October\u2013November 2021. It is the first body that can make any claim to represent the democratic wishes of the global population as a whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Belgium<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The G1000 is a donation-funded initiative. It was launched in 2011 with an online survey to identify issues. More than 5,000 suggestions were put forward and ranked by thousands of citizens. After clustering, 25 themes were put forward for a second round of voting. Next, a full day of deliberation bringing one thousand participants together took place on November 11, 2011, in Brussels<\/a>. Over 700 attended. They were split into groups of 10 and after a briefing by experts, the participants drew on proposals around the surviving themes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A smaller group of citizens, the G32, gathered regularly over the ensuing months to refine these proposals and transform them into concrete recommendations. These recommendations were to be put to the rest of the country in April 2012.[29]<\/a><\/sup>[30]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Canada<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In Canada a policy jury or citizen jury is a body of people convened to render a decision or advice on a matter of public policy. Citizens participating in a policy jury engage in a comprehensive learning and deliberation process before finalizing a conclusion or set of recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Citizens\u2019 Assemblies on Electoral Reform convened in British Columbia in 2004[31]<\/a><\/sup> and Ontario in 2006.[32]<\/a><\/sup> They used policy juries to consider alternative electoral systems. Three of Ontario\u2019s Local Health Integration Networks (LHIN) referred their Integrated Health Service Plans (IHSP) for 2010\u20132013 to policy juries for advice and refinement. LHINs referring their IHSPs to policy juries include the South East LHIN,[33]<\/a><\/sup> Central LHIN and Mississauga Halton LHIN.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

British Columbia<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Main article: Citizens\u2019 Assembly on Electoral Reform (British Columbia)<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

160 people and one chair participated in the British Columbia assembly to discuss and issue guidance on electoral reform.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Selection<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The selection process was quasi-random. One man and one woman were randomly selected from each of British Columbia\u2019s 79 electoral districts in addition to two aboriginal members and the chair.[34]<\/a><\/sup> These members were selected by a civic lottery that ensured gender balance and fair representation by age group and geography. First, 15,800 invitations were randomly mailed to British Columbians including 200 in each constituency, asking if they were willing to put their names into a draw for future candidacy. The names then went through two more selection rounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The resulting assembly was not very representative of the larger public. The members were dissatisfied with BC\u2019s current electoral system, while surveys of the public indicated it to be relatively satisfied.[35]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lang noted two similarities across the assembly: an interest in learning, especially about the political process, and a commitment to process once it started. She wrote, \u201cthis is likely to have contributed to the excellent working dynamic within the Assembly\u201d.[36]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Emphasizing the importance of representativeness in the selection process, Pal wrote, \u201cthe requirement of an equal number of members from each electoral district resulted in Citizens\u2019 Assemblies that did not reflect the actual population and may have skewed the outcome toward proposals that prioritized geographic representation.\u201d[11]<\/a><\/sup> Therefore, the emphasis on geography limited the representativeness of the final assemblies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Process<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The assembly conducted a twelve-week \u201clearning phase\u201d involving expert presentations, group discussions and access to source materials. Work included a review of electoral systems in use around the world and their various effects on the political process. This was followed by a public consultation phase lasting from May to June. Assembly members held over 50 public hearings and received 1,603 written submissions.[34]<\/a><\/sup> The members deliberated over which electoral system to recommend, and then the assembly took three separate votes.[37]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Results<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

On December 10, the assembly\u2019s final report, titled \u201cMaking Every Vote Count: The Case for Electoral Reform in British Columbia\u201d was presented to the B.C. legislature by the assembly. In May 2005, the recommendations from the assembly were accepted by 57.7% of voters in a referendum and were supported by a majority in 77 of the 79 electoral districts. However, the referendum required 60% approval by 60% and majorities in 60% of the 79 districts in order to pass. Consequently, no change ensued. The recommendations were rejected by 60.9% of voters in a follow-up referendum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ontario<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Main article: Citizens\u2019 Assembly on Electoral Reform (Ontario)<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A total of 103 people took part in Ontario\u2019s assembly. The recommendations of the Ontario assembly were rejected in the ensuing referendum by 63% of voters, retaining the status quo<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Denmark<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

\u201cconsensus conference\u201d redirects here. For other uses, see Consensus conference (disambiguation)<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consensus conferences originated in Denmark<\/a> in the 1980s as one of the earliest attempts by policymakers to include the lay public\u2019s opinions in their decision-making through public engagement<\/a>.[38]<\/a><\/sup> The purpose of consensus conferences is to \u201cqualify people\u2019s attitudes, inasmuch as they are given all the information they require until they are ready to assess a given technology<\/a>\u201c.[39]<\/a><\/sup> Consensus conferences are generally deemed suitable for topics that are socially relevant and\/or that require public support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Participants are randomly selected<\/a> from a group of citizens<\/a> who are invited to apply.[39]<\/a><\/sup>[40]<\/a><\/sup> Invitees are members of the lay public who have no specific knowledge of the issue.[39]<\/a><\/sup> The resulting panel is demographically representative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Panel members participate in two preparatory weekends and are given material prepared by a communicator to gain a basic understanding of the topic.[39]<\/a><\/sup> The panel then participates in a 4-day conference. The panel participates in a Q&A session with experts, where they hear opposing views. Members then prepare a final document summarizing their views and recommendations. On the final day, the panel then discusses their final document with policy- and decision-makers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

France<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Main article: Citizens convention for ecological transition<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ireland<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Main articles: Citizens\u2019 Assembly (Ireland)<\/a> and Constitutional Convention (Ireland)<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

After the Irish financial crisis<\/a> beginning in 2008, an assembly was among various proposals for political reform. In the 2011 general election<\/a>, party manifestos included assemblies or conventions, for electoral reform (Fine Gael<\/a>[41]<\/a><\/sup>) or constitutional reform (Fianna F\u00e1il<\/a>,[42]<\/a><\/sup> Labour Party<\/a>,[43]<\/a><\/sup> Sinn F\u00e9in<\/a>,[44]<\/a><\/sup> and the Green Party<\/a>[45]<\/a><\/sup>). The ensuing Fine Gael\u2013Labour government<\/a>\u2018s programme included a \u201cConstitutional Convention<\/a>\u201d comprising a chairperson nominated by the Taoiseach<\/a>, 33 legislators nominated by political parties, and 67 citizens selected to be demographically representative.[19]<\/a><\/sup> It met from 2012 to 2014, discussing six issues specified by the government and then two assembly-selected issues. It issued nine reports, recommending constitutional amendments and other changes to statute law and legislative practice.[46]<\/a><\/sup> The government\u2019s response was criticised as lukewarm: it implemented a few recommendations, rejected others, and referred more to committees and the civil service for review.[47]<\/a><\/sup>[48]<\/a><\/sup>[49]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Fine Gael\u2013independent minority government<\/a> formed after the 2016 general election<\/a> established an assembly in July 2016 \u201cwithout participation by politicians, and with a mandate to look at a limited number of key issues over an extended time period.\u201d[50]<\/a><\/sup>[20]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Netherlands<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Held in 2006 and composed of 143 randomly-selected Dutch citizens, the Burgerforum Kiesstelsel<\/em> was tasked with examining options for electoral reform. On December 14, 2006, the Burgerforum<\/em> presented its final report to a minister of the outgoing People\u2019s Party (VVD)<\/a>. A response to the report was delivered in April 2008, when it was rejected by the government of the then ruling coalition.[51]<\/a><\/sup> In 2020, consultation was started on a bill to implement the group\u2019s electoral reforms.[52]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Poland<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Beginning in July 2016 after the municipal response to flooding<\/a> was deemed inadequate by many citizens, Gda\u0144sk<\/a> assemblies comprising approximately 60 randomly-selected residents made binding decisions to address problems.[53]<\/a><\/sup> Assembly meetings are calm and even described as enjoyable. Names from the city\u2019s voter rolls are selected randomly. The membership is then balanced according to factors such as education-level, age, sex and district. For example, the assembly has the same percentage of senior citizens as the city. The assembly meets for several days, hears testimony from experts, asks questions and deliberates in small groups before rendering its binding policy decision.[53]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

United Kingdom<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Main articles: UK Climate Assembly<\/a> and Citizens\u2019 Assembly of Scotland<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2019 the British government announced the UK Climate Assembly<\/a>,[54]<\/a><\/sup> with 108 citizens aiming to deliberate over how to reach net-zero<\/a> emissions by 2050.[22]<\/a><\/sup> Meetings were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic<\/a> and took place over six weekends between January and May 2020, with a report published in September 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2019 the government of Scotland announced the Citizens\u2019 Assembly of Scotland<\/a> with 6 meetings consisting of 100 citizens taking place between October 2019 and April 2020[55]<\/a><\/sup> to address 3 questions:[56]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n