Just Advisory and Maximally Representative: A Conjoint Experiment on Non-Participants' Legitimacy Perceptions of Deliberative Forums

Abstract

Citizen involvement in deliberative forums is frequently discussed with an eye to boosting the legitimacy of decision-making. However, this idea has been radically challenged by Cristina Lafont (2015, 2017, 2019), who argues that deliberative forums may decrease rather than increase legitimacy. Yet Lafont's legitimacy challenge has been primarily discussed at a theoretical level without taking the perceptions of citizens into account. Referring to an explorative student conjoint experiment this article examines how non-participants assess deliberative forums. It focuses on different authorization mechanisms and a set of institutional design features and combines them with non-participants' substantive considerations and their awareness of such forums. Empirical findings of the student sample confirm Lafont's critique, as they suggest that respondents want the authority of deliberative forums to be clearly circumscribed and minimal but also maximally representative and inclusive. Moreover, legitimacy perceptions are closely tied to substantive considerations and awareness of such novel and unfamiliar institutions.

Distributing Democratic Influence: External Efficacy and the Preferred Influence of Policy Winners and Losers

“…Second, most respondents generally opposed taking degree of affectedness into account, instead preferring equal levels of influence for all citizens (as per Online Appendix Figures 1 and 4). Results thus align most closely with the literature on procedural fairness (e.g., Doherty & Wolak, 2012;Goldberg, 2021), which suggests that broader, more open opportunities for input typically are more likely to be viewed as legitimate. Political theorists and activists arguing in favor of a principle of proportionality (e.g., Brighouse & Fleurbaey, 2010;Angell & Huseby, 2020) may thus have to grapple with a democratic majority that is instinctively opposed to such measures.…”

Engaged, Indifferent, Skeptical or Critical? Disentangling Attitudes towards Local Deliberative Mini-Publics in Four Western European Democracies

“…On the other hand, the greatest share of citizens in the countries examined (except in Germany where they still constitute 41%) is actually indifferent towards the use of local DMPs. The perceived legitimacy and inclusiveness of DMPs largely depends on whether those who are indifferent can be informed and convinced of the relative merits of deliberative democratic innovations [47]. Mobilizing this substantial group of apathetic citizens is crucial, as they appear to be the least politically engaged and the least trusting of representative institutions.…”

Support for Deliberative mini-Publics among the Losers of Representative Democracy

“…A new strand of literature on public support for mini-publics has proliferated in recent years, enriching the existing works on support for various process preferences such as referenda (Bowler and Donovan 2019; Schuck and de Vreese 2015; Smith, Tolbert, and Keller 2010; Werner 2020; Werner, Marien, and Felicetti 2020), electoral reforms (Bowler and Donovan 2007), or technocracy (Beiser-McGrath et al 2022; Bertsou 2022; Bertsou and Caramani 2022; Bertsou and Pastorella 2017). Studies have examined what kind of mini-publics (consultative, binding, with few or many participants …) were more popular among citizens (Bedock and Pilet 2020; Christensen 2020; Goldberg 2021; Goldberg and Bächtiger 2022; Pow 2021; Rojon, Rijken, and Klandermans 2019), as well as how mini-publics affect the perceived legitimacy of policy decisions (Boulianne 2018; Christensen 2020; Jacobs and Kaufmann 2021). This article dialogues with another strand of research that assesses which citizens are more supportive of DMPs.…”