On Halloween last year, my school was lucky enough to have former Lib Dem MP Tom Brake visit us to give a lecture on the work of the pressure group he is the director of, Unlock Democracy. He mentioned many possible proposals for constitutional reforms, including the usual suggestions of changing our electoral system and removing our archaic House of Lords reform. One reform, though, piqued my interest more than any of the others - the proposal to introduce citizen assemblies, a brave attempt at bringing more direct democracy into our politics by allowing the people themselves to discuss the problems we face today and create solutions.
Momentum has been growing for citizen assemblies since the shock of the Brexit referendum, as politicians and policymakers have searched for a way to address not only the intense polarisation in politics, but also the growing feeling of powerlessness among the public that was so aggressively exposed in 2016. It has gained support from people involved with both of our major parties, with one of its biggest proponents being former Conservative MP Rory Stewart and another being former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Brown has praised the model for its ability to engage in the issues that could define their futures while also helping to hold the government accountable. Using his surviving influence in the party, he has managed to ensure that the idea is at least being considered by the policymakers of the Labour Party.
Considering the relatively realistic chance of being implemented into our political system, we ought to explore what a citizen assembly actually is and how it promises to improve politics, with the aim of answering the question: can they be part of democracy’s future?
The citizen assembly model is designed to mirror that of a court. Individuals from the general public are randomly selected – though the selection process can be edited to ensure the demographics of the public are broadly represented – to work together and deliberate on an issue of public policy. They receive presentations from both sides of the argument, with these presenters playing the role of the lawyer in this court. This ensures that the jury can have an informed discussion which acknowledges the views and concerns of all the stakeholders in the issue. Then, after a hopefully civil and fruitful conversation, the jury will have reached a compromise and produced a policy which can be debated by, refined and eventually implemented by the legislative body connected to the assembly. The assembly's agenda is typically determined by the legislature connected to the assembly, though it can also be chosen by the assembly itself.
UK Climate Assembly at work. Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament.
Why is this such a promising addition to democracy? Because it offers us two things fundamental to the health of a democracy. Firstly, people are encouraged and empowered to participate in the political process. Secondly, it is conducive to an environment of cooperation, where people of different political backgrounds come to discuss their views, understand each other and finally make a compromise that everyone can get behind. There are many examples of citizen assemblies and their work, including Canada and even here in the UK with the Climate Assembly. Yet when attempting to illustrate the scale of the promise from citizen assemblies to democracy, I find no better success than the Irish Citizen Assembly and its response to the divisive issue of abortion.
In Ireland, citizen assemblies are used to help find solutions to controversial constitutional or political issues. In October 2016, an assembly was convened to tackle abortion. Around 100 people, chosen to reflect the social make up of Ireland, were given what seemed to be an impossible task. Over the course of five months (November 2016 to April 2017), the jury went through the process laid out above, hearing from lawyers on both sides including medical and ethical specialists giving expertise on the issue. They also listened to personal testimonies from people affected by abortion, providing the very human side of the issue. Finally, the assembly deliberated together and decided, with 64% in favour, to legalise 'terminations without restrictions’ by repealing the 8th amendment of the Irish constitution. This decision was recommended to the Irish parliament, who in turn debated the recommendation before calling a referendum based on the assembly’s conclusion. The Irish public, in a result remarkably similar to that of the assembly, voted 66% in favour of abortion legalisation, thus breaking the deadlock on an issue that had divided Ireland for decades.
One of this assembly’s former members, Louise Caldwell, recalls how the experience made her feel "empowered and informed" while also providing her with the "skills to have difficult discussions" in order to find common ground. Another former member, Fionnuala Geraghty, remembered how the group "were guided not by emotion" but "by facts and by experts", allowing them to reach an informed conclusion. These comments, along with the wider success of this story, reveal the power of these assemblies to properly inform their members of the political issue at hand, and to give them the chance to have a real impact in solving that issue. They are a means of bridging the gap between differing views through effective, civil conversation.
So, can citizen assemblies save democracy? Not on their own. Yet can they play an indelible role in the future of democracy? Absolutely. With their implementation, we can hope to tackle the growing sentiment of powerlessness and apathy rife in our country, and through using the assemblies to create a truly civil environment of discussion and deliberation, we may yet start to heal from the sickness of polarisation that continues to plague our society.
Comments