The Effects of Mixed Membership in a Deliberative Forum: The Irish Constitutional Convention of 2012–2014

Abstract

The Constitutional Convention was established by the Irish government in 2012. It was tasked with making recommendations on a number of constitutional reform proposals. As a mini-public, its membership was a mix of 66 citizens (randomly selected) and 33 politicians (self-selected). Its recommendations were debated on the floor of the Irish parliament with three of them leading to constitutional referendums; other recommendations are in the process of being implemented. This article uses data gathered during and after the operation of the Convention to examine this real-world example of a mixed-membership mini-public. The focus is on how the inclusion of politicians may have impacted on the Convention’s mode of operation and/or its outcomes. We find little impact in terms of its operation (e.g. no evidence that politicians dominated the discussions). There is evidence of a slight liberal bias among the politician membership, but this had little effect on the outcomes.

Citizens' Assemblies for Referendums and Constitutional Reforms: Is There an “Irish Model” for Deliberative Democracy?

“…. ), in one respect at least the presence of politician members does appear to have affected the outcome-on the issue of electoral reform, a matter of considerable personal interest to politicians" (Farrell et al, 2020). Indeed, I concur and argue that a mixed DMP only works under certain specific conditions, which are the following: 1.…”

“…For the 66 citizens and the 33 politicians an equivalent number of alternates were also selected so that the assembly would not be diminished in numbers in the absence of some of its members. And indeed, the politicians did rotate quite a lot: "throughout the lifetime of the Convention, there were a total of 52 members from the Irish parliament who attended its meeting" (Farrell et al, 2020). The experts would be involved in the process but by giving lectures to inform the assembly with factual data, without directly deliberating.…”

“…. ) of a convention whose membership comprised a mix of politicians and ordinary citizens (though these were not randomly selected); there the decision was taken to operate along normal parliamentary lines" (Farrell et al, 2020). 21 3.…”

The value of ‘between-election’ political participation: Do parliamentary e-petitions matter to political elites?

“…Other countries have sought to engage political elites alongside the public to reduce the risk of political detachment. In Ireland, for example, the Government's decision to include 33 parliamentarians alongside 66 randomly selected citizens in the Convention on the Constitution has been regarded as a key factor in the subsequent implementation of many of its (often controversial) proposals (Farrell et al, 2019, but for a counterargument see White, 2017). In taking this agenda forwards, and by recognising the role of parliament's political elites not only as the key interface between the public and policy process but also as the drivers of policy change, future research can therefore generate critical insights regarding the capacity of citizens to inform policymaking 'between elections' via non-electoral participatory mechanisms.…”

It’s Not Just the Taking Part that Counts: ‘Like Me’ Perceptions Connect the Wider Public to Minipublics

“…When asked about the importance of including 'neither' participants, the only significant difference (p < 0.05) that emerges in Games-Howell pairwise comparisons is between 'neither' respondents who find this more important than unionist respondents (but not significantly more so than nationalist respondents). 11 While minipublics typically comprise lay citizens as participants, some design choices deviate from the norm to include politicians within the membership (see Farrell et al 2020).…”