Complementing and correcting representative institutions: When and how to use mini‐publics

Abstract

In democratic theory and practice, it has become a popular view that designed deliberative mini‐publics can effectively counteract failures of representative democratic institutions. But when should mini‐publics be deployed, and how should they be designed? This article develops a framework for thinking about these questions. It argues that when representative democratic institutions ensure the empowerment of inclusions, enable the formation of collective agendas and wills, and are capable of translating those agendas into binding decisions, mini‐publics should be used sparingly and as complementary initiatives; the less representative institutions are able to serve these functions, the more mini‐publics should gain independence and standing to correct these problems. The article shows how this can be operationalised in light of two key institutional design issues – coupling and authority – and discusses some empirical examples that foreground the empirical leverage offered by the suggested framework.

How citizens evaluate participatory processes: a conjoint analysis

“…Talk-centric theories focus on the communicative processes of opinion and will-formation that precede voting. This perspective incorporates different versions of deliberative democracy whereby participation should aim to ensure the quality of decisions by changing preferences through a process of deliberation (Bengtsson and Christensen 2016;Setälä 2017;Kuyper and Wolkenstein 2019;Jacquet 2018).…”

“…Direct-democratic mechanisms are moulded on a vote-centric conception of democracy and give citizens the right to make decisions directly (Altman 2011;Qvortrup 2013). Talkcentric deliberative mechanisms rarely make citizens formal decision-makers, but help citizens discuss the issues and thereby achieve enlightened understanding of the underlying problems (Grönlund, Bächtiger, and Setälä 2014;Setälä 2017;Kuyper and Wolkenstein 2019). While both goals are laudable from a democratic perspective, implementing participatory mechanisms entail trade-offs as they are rarely able to achieve all goals simultaneously (LeDuc 2015).…”

“…The introduction of democratic or participatory innovations is a popular method for enhancing democratic credentials (Smith 2009;Geissel and Newton 2012;Geissel and Joas 2013;Grönlund, Bächtiger, and Setälä 2014;Kuyper and Wolkenstein 2019). However, while it seems clear that citizens demand more involvement, it remains unclear exactly how they want to be involved.…”

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

“…Second, while it is clear that people value minipublics due to their membership comprising ' ordinary citizens', it is less clear how minipublics should operate alongside existing decision-making processes involving politicians. Even though our results imply that minipublics can play a legitimate role in making more or less binding decisions, it is more plausible to envisage minipublics playing a more minimal role as trusted information proxies for other citizens, such as ahead of referendums (MacKenzie & Warren 2012), or supplementing representative decisionmaking under certain conditions (Kuyper & Wolkenstein 2019;Bächtiger & Goldberg 2020).…”

Towards a More Robust, But Limited and Contingent, Defence of the Political Uses of Deliberative Minipublics

“…Our general contingency proviso draws from the recent functional or problem-based turn in theorizing minipublics (Warren 2017;Beauvais & Warren 2018;Bächtiger & Parkinson 2019). In this regard, Kuyper and Wolkenstein (2018) have claimed that minipublics should have strong decision-making powers if the representative system is not responsive to citizen concerns. Conversely, if the representative system is basically responsive, then deliberative forums should only have consultative functions.…”