The nature of the beast: are citizens’ juries deliberative or pluralist?

Abstract

Citizens' juries are a form of ''minipublics,'' small-scale experiments with citizen participation in public decision-making. The article presents a theoretical argument that improves understanding relating to the design of the citizens' jury. We develop the claim that two discourses on democracy can be discerned: the deliberative and the pluralist. By looking at the design features of citizens' juries we conclude that they are based on pluralist reasoning to a far greater extent than most authors seem to realize, and that the association with deliberative democracy is therefore one-sided. Based on empirical findings, we attempt to shed further light on the actual operation of citizens' juries. Observations of two recent Dutch juries suggest on the one hand that a learning process and a positive effect on the sense of political involvement occurred. On the other hand, we saw a certain level of groupthink in one of the citizens' juries, and found that the juries are not greatly representative in terms of political preferences. Our findings point firstly to a need for greater awareness among the organizers of juries of the two democratic discourses. This would lead to more consistent jury design. Secondly, our research emphasizes the need for more hands-on critical research of minipublics.The functioning of the public sphere in Western representative democracies has been a longstanding topic of study for political scientists and scholars of science and technology alike. Oft-mentioned concerns by researchers in this area include the alienation between elected representatives and the electorate, the effect of media and private companies on public opinion and institutions, cultural and other cleavages among groups that make engagement problematic, the demise of associations, and the ever increasing levels of market and technocratic thinking.

Is the Jury Still Out? Toward Greater Insight in Policy Learning in Participatory Decision Processes—the Case of Dutch Citizens' Juries on Water Management in the Rhine Basin

“…There have, however, also been critical discussions of citizens' juries in general and learning in particular (see, e.g., Huitema et al 2007). Consensus building is associated with the deliberative processes of interaction in juries.…”

“…In many cases, authorities lack experience with multi-party approaches, rely heavily on technical expertise, are not willing to change, fear losing control, or fear that too broad participation could threaten the confidentiality of proceedings. Consequently, participation often remains limited to information provision or consultation (see also Leach and Pelkey 2001, Olsson et al 2004, Sabatier et al 2005, and Huitema et al 2007). …”

Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment and valuation: Mixed methods or mixed messages?

“…It was anticipated that there would be a lack of knowledge among workshop 272 participants about the Dogger Bank, and hence background information would need to be provided 273 to facilitate discussions. Accordingly, the workshop was based on the principles of a citizens' jury in 274 which expert witnesses are invited to state their case to a group of jurors selected from the general 275 public (Huitema et al, 2007). Expert witnesses are people who are knowledgeable of the issue in 276 question or strong advocates of particular positions in the debate.…”

Sustainable development and institutional boundaries

“…The application of the concept of industrial ecology can only be effective as long as it is clear how certain roles and responsibilities are split up in order to pursue an overall goal. Next to attempts to transcend boundaries, we may also observe aspirations to actively engage citizens in a productive way, for instance in participatory projects that involve the establishment of environmental policies (Huitema et al 2007;Strauss 2010;Behagel and Turnhout 2011;Lövbrand et al 2011).…”