Can politicians and citizens deliberate together? Evidence from a local deliberative mini‐public

Abstract

In a deliberative mini-public, a representative number of citizens receive information and discuss given policy topics in facilitated small groups. Typically, mini-publics are most effective politically and can have the most impact on policy-making when they are connected to democratic decision-making processes. Theorists have put forward possible mechanisms that may enhance this linkage, one of which is involving politicians within mini-publics with citizens. However, although much research to date has focussed on mini-publics with many citizen participants, there is little analysis of mini-publics with politicians as coparticipants. In this study, we ask how involving politicians in mini-publics influences both participating citizens' opinions and citizens' and politicians' perceptions of the quality of the mini-public deliberations. We organised an online mini-public, together with the City of Turku, Finland, on the topic of transport planning. The participants (n = 171) were recruited from a random sample and discussed the topic in facilitated small groups (n = 21). Pre-and postdeliberation surveys were collected. The effect of politicians on mini-publics was studied using an experimental intervention: in half of the groups, local politicians (two per group) participated, whereas in the other half, citizens deliberated among themselves. Although we found that the participating citizens' opinions changed, no trace of differences between the two treatment groups was reported. We conclude that politicians, at least when they are in a clear minority in the deliberating small groups, can deliberate with citizens without negatively affecting internal inclusion and the quality of deliberation within mini-publics.

Youth support for direct versus talk‐centric democratic processes in Finland

“…Deliberative mini‐publics are institutions designed to realize the deliberative democracy and deliberative democratic principles of, for example, public reasoning (Dryzek, 2007; Ryan & Smith, 2015). Typically, certain elements, such as random sampling, receiving of information, and structured deliberation guided by independent facilitators/moderators (Grönlund et al, 2022; Michels & Binnema, 2018), characterize mini‐publics. However, there are expansive and restrictive definitions of mini‐publics (see Fishkin, 2011; Fung, 2003; Goodin & Dryzek, 2006; Smith, 2009).…”

“…This would further reduce people's power in talk‐centric processes — not only is the aim of deliberation often will‐formation instead of decision‐making impact, but even the will‐formation process may be diverted by decision‐makers. However, studies in the Finnish context with deliberative experiments suggest that politicians' involvement in deliberative mini‐publics has not had a negative effect on deliberation (Grönlund et al, 2022; Värttö et al, 2021). Similar logic regarding the level of institutionalization could also be applied to other talk‐centric processes, especially here, where the discussion forums exist to complement representative decision‐making — thus still leaving the power in the hands of the institutions.…”

Trends in Mini-Publics Research: High Expectations, Mixed Findings, and Clear-Cut Challenges

“…Mini-publics are a small representative number of lay citizens that, after receiving information and deliberating on a particular policy issue, arrive at a recommendation that is expected to be taken into account by the authorities and or eventually submitted to a referendum. Their three core principles are deliberation, inclusion, and public influence (Beauvais & Warren 2019; Suiter et al 2020; Grönlund et al 2022). Mini-publics enact deliberative democracy in its normative goal of having political decisions be made through public debate rather than by aggregating preferences; in this sense, mini-publics differentiate deliberative democracy from electoral representative processes.…”