IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v7y2018i11p236-d182971.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deepening and Connecting Democratic Processes. The Opportunities and Pitfalls of Mini-Publics in Renewing Democracy

Author

Listed:
  • Ank Michels

    (School of Governance, Utrecht University, Bijlhouwerstraat 6, 3511 ZC Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Harmen Binnema

    (School of Governance, Utrecht University, Bijlhouwerstraat 6, 3511 ZC Utrecht, The Netherlands)

Abstract

In recent decades, so-called “mini-publics” have been organized in many countries to renew policy making and democracy. One characteristic of mini-publics is that the selection of the participants is based on random sampling or sortition. This gives each member of the community an equal chance of being selected. Another feature is that deliberation forms the core of the process of how proposals are developed. In this paper, we investigate the possibilities and challenges of sortition and deliberation in the context of the call for a deepening of democracy and more citizen engagement in policy making. Based on extensive research on citizens’ forums (G1000) in The Netherlands, we show the potential of mini-publics, but a number of shortcomings as well. Some of these are related to the specific design of the G1000, while others are of a more fundamental nature and are due to the contradictory democratic values that deliberative mini-publics try to combine. One of these concerns the tension between the quality of deliberation and political impact. We conclude that combining institutional approaches could be a way out to deal with these tensions and a step forward to both deepen and connect democratic processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Ank Michels & Harmen Binnema, 2018. "Deepening and Connecting Democratic Processes. The Opportunities and Pitfalls of Mini-Publics in Renewing Democracy," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-13, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:7:y:2018:i:11:p:236-:d:182971
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/11/236/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/11/236/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luskin, Robert C. & Fishkin, James S. & Jowell, Roger, 2002. "Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(3), pages 455-487, July.
    2. John Gastil & Robert Richards, 2013. "Making Direct Democracy Deliberative through Random Assemblies," Politics & Society, , vol. 41(2), pages 253-281, June.
    3. Franziska Eckardt & Paul Benneworth, 2018. "The G1000 Firework Dialogue as a Social Learning System: A Community of Practice Approach," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-18, August.
    4. Maeve Cooke, 2000. "Five Arguments for Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 48(5), pages 947-969, December.
    5. Robert E. Goodin & John S. Dryzek, 2006. "Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics," Politics & Society, , vol. 34(2), pages 219-244, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carlos Rico Motos, 2019. "‘Let the Citizens Fix This Mess!’ Podemos’ Claim for Participatory Democracy in Spain," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 187-197.
    2. Maija Setälä & Kimmo Grönlund & Kaisa Herne, 2010. "Citizen Deliberation on Nuclear Power: A Comparison of Two Decision‐Making Methods," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(4), pages 688-714, October.
    3. Simon Pek, 2019. "Rekindling Union Democracy Through the Use of Sortition," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 1033-1051, April.
    4. Jimmy Donaghey, 2008. "Deliberation, Employment Relations and Social Partnership in the Republic of Ireland," Economic and Industrial Democracy, Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden, vol. 29(1), pages 35-63, February.
    5. Delshad, Ashlie B. & Raymond, Leigh & Sawicki, Vanessa & Wegener, Duane T., 2010. "Public attitudes toward political and technological options for biofuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3414-3425, July.
    6. Álvarez-Farizo, Begoña & Gil, José M. & Howard, B.J., 2009. "Impacts from restoration strategies: Assessment through valuation workshops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 787-797, January.
    7. Briguglio, Marie & Delaney, Liam & Wood, Alex, 2018. "Partisanship, priming and participation in public-good schemes," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 136-150.
    8. Hugh Ward & Aletta Norval & Todd Landman & Jules Pretty, 2003. "Open Citizens’ Juries and the Politics of Sustainability," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(2), pages 282-299, June.
    9. Robert E. Goodin & Simon J. Niemeyer, 2003. "When Does Deliberation Begin? Internal Reflection versus Public Discussion in Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(4), pages 627-649, December.
    10. Degeling, Chris & Rychetnik, Lucie & Street, Jackie & Thomas, Rae & Carter, Stacy M., 2017. "Influencing health policy through public deliberation: Lessons learned from two decades of Citizens'/community juries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 166-171.
    11. Hoicka, Christina E. & Lowitzsch, Jens & Brisbois, Marie Claire & Kumar, Ankit & Ramirez Camargo, Luis, 2021. "Implementing a just renewable energy transition: Policy advice for transposing the new European rules for renewable energy communities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    12. Alpa Shah, 2021. "What if We Selected our Leaders by Lottery? Democracy by Sortition, Liberal Elections and Communist Revolutionaries," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 52(4), pages 687-728, July.
    13. Andreas C. Goldberg & Erika J. van Elsas & Claes H. De Vreese, 2021. "Eurovisions: An Exploration and Explanation of Public Preferences for Future EU Scenarios," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 222-241, March.
    14. Deng, Chung-Yeh & Wu, Chia-Ling, 2010. "An innovative participatory method for newly democratic societies: The "civic groups forum" on national health insurance reform in Taiwan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 896-903, March.
    15. Kim Strandberg & Kim Backström & Janne Berg & Thomas Karv, 2021. "Democratically Sustainable Local Development? The Outcomes of Mixed Deliberation on a Municipal Merger on Participants’ Social Trust, Political Trust, and Political Efficacy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-17, June.
    16. Mikko Leino & Katariina Kulha & Maija Setälä & Juha Ylisalo, 2022. "Expert hearings in mini-publics: How does the field of expertise influence deliberation and its outcomes?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(3), pages 429-450, September.
    17. Cavalcanti, Carina & Schläpfer, Felix & Schmid, Bernhard, 2010. "Public participation and willingness to cooperate in common-pool resource management: A field experiment with fishing communities in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 613-622, January.
    18. Nicole Curato & Marit Böker, 2016. "Linking mini-publics to the deliberative system: a research agenda," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(2), pages 173-190, June.
    19. Devkota, Bishnu Prasad, 2020. "Social inclusion and deliberation in response to REDD+ in Nepal’s community forestry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    20. Benslimane, Ismaël & Crosetto, Paolo & Magni-Berton, Raul & Varaine, Simon, 2023. "Intellectual property reform in the laboratory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 204-221.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:7:y:2018:i:11:p:236-:d:182971. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.