How to Make Citizens’ Participation Successful: The Case for Citizens’ Panels on Key Commission Proposals
Daniel Freund (MEP European Parliament, Greens/EFA)
In recent years, the concept of citizens’ assemblies has gained traction as a means of enhancing democratic engagement. While the idea of involving citizens in decision-making processes holds significant potential, it is crucial to recognise that such assemblies can only be effective under specific conditions. In her essay, Kalypso Nicolaidis argues for establishing a permanent assembly composed of European citizens and residents selected by lot that should complement the EU institutions. Here I will argue why a permanent and unfocused general European Citizens’ Assembly is a recipe for disappointment and why instead a successful use of citizens’ assemblies needs concrete questions, political backing, institutional support, clear objectives, and transparency. This is based on my observations during one of the biggest citizens’ assemblies so far, the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFE), in which I was involved as a member of the Executive Board on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group. During this time, I accompanied citizens as they made numerous suggestions – which unfortunately have not yet been implemented. Here is what I have learned from this experience.
1. Thematic Scope: Focus on Concrete Issues
First and foremost, citizens’ assemblies are most effective when addressing current and specific issues, particularly those that can be framed as yes/no questions or the balancing of two principles, such as how to reach climate goals in combination with social justice, the question posed to a French citizens’ assembly 2019-20. Tasking a European Citizens’ Assembly with a broad range of issues undermines its effectiveness. Complex, overarching issues, such as world peace or broad constitutional reforms, are often too abstract and multifaceted for a citizens’ assembly to handle meaningfully and create the risk of generating vague discussions without actionable proposals.
By concentrating on specific issues, citizens’ assemblies can yield tangible results that resonate with the public and that are not easily dismissed by politicians. The risk of engaging in broader discussions lies in the potential for participants to feel overwhelmed or disengaged, ultimately undermining the assembly’s purpose. Therefore, limiting the scope to clear, actionable questions enhances the potential for meaningful democratic participation. For example, Ireland’s successful citizens’ assembly on abortion had a clear, focused question that allowed for direct citizen involvement in a concrete decision. At least a number of the proposals made by the similarly focused French citizens’ assembly on social climate protection led to changes in French law, such as a ban of short distance flights. At the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFE) our scope was often too wide, which contributed to the fact that the wider public never really engaged with the CoFE. That is why fewer and concrete issues are better.
2. Support: The Necessity of Political and Institutional Backing
Another critical factor for the success of any citizens’ assembly is political backing and institutional mechanisms to implement its recommendations. The legitimacy of any assembly hinges on the assurance that its recommendations will lead to real policy implications. Without a genuine commitment from political leaders or institutions to act on the outcomes of such assemblies and without a clear pathway for implementation, the entire process can foster disillusionment among participants and the public. Citizens may invest time and energy into discussions only to see their conclusions ignored or sidelined, increasing their distrust in democratic processes and institutions.
For instance, if a European Citizens’ Assembly were to propose a policy change but lacked the backing of key political figures or institutions, the results could backfire. Instead of enhancing democratic legitimacy, the assembly might instead reinforce perceptions of inefficacy and detachment within the political sphere. A rather positive case is the French Citizens’ Convention on Climate, where President Emmanuel Macron promised to follow up on the citizens’ 149 proposals. Around 50 of their proposals have become French law meanwhile, e.g. on better insulation of buildings. Without such follow-ups, the assembly risks becoming an exercise in futility, leading to greater disillusionment rather than meaningful change.
While the European Parliament gave strong backing to the CoFE citizens’ panels, the Council was never ready to guarantee a proper follow-up. The Commission has claimed that they followed up but proposed a reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) that took the opposite direction of what the citizens wanted. The lack of any commitments by the re-elected Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and the new majority in the European Parliament for those parties that mostly rejected the CoFE citizens’ panels in principle gives rise to little hope that a European Citizens’ Assembly would have any formal powers in the EU. The Commission or Council will only be ready to follow up on the citizens’ assemblies’ recommendations once the Commission commits to including their input into a legal proposal. To further democratise the instrument, citizens’ panels could be triggered not only by the Commission top down but also by European Citizens’ Initiatives bottom-up.
3. Transparency: Representing and Including the Wider Public
Transparency is another essential element for the credibility and effectiveness of any citizens’ assembly. The deliberations and outcomes of these gatherings must be accessible to the public to foster a sense of ownership and accountability. If citizens feel excluded from the process or unaware of its developments, the legitimacy of the assembly’s findings may be called into question. The selection of randomly chosen candidates balanced for gender, different regions, and those with higher and lower formal education for the CoFE citizens panels meant a lot of calls to randomly composed telephone numbers. By ensuring that debates are open and outcomes are communicated clearly, the assembly can build trust among the wider population. Transparency also allows for constructive criticism and public discourse, which can enrich the democratic process and lead to more robust outcomes. In contrast, a lack of transparency can contribute to further alienation and scepticism towards political institutions.
4. Backup: Optional decision by referendum
Citizens’ assemblies lead to proposals directed towards elected decision makers. Usually it is up to parliamentarians and governments to decide whether proposals are adopted or rejected. Yet, in Ireland, the citizens’ assemblies recommendations on the right to an abortion and for gay marriage were eventually voted on in referenda, both confirming the citizens’ recommendations. If a referendum becomes an option, this creates a strong incentive for parliaments and governments to find answers that truly convince a majority of citizens, since otherwise they would face a referendum forcing their hands. The practice of the majority of German Länder that offer referenda after stages of collecting signatures for a proposal demonstrates that even if referenda remain rare, their “threat” motivates governments to find more far-reaching compromises to accommodate bottom-up citizens’ proposals.
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, while Citizens’ Assemblies can involve citizens more directly, reconnect politicians to public sentiment and unblock political questions stuck in deadlock between political actors, they function only under a number of conditions. They work best when they focus on concrete current issues, leading to implementable policy objectives and have the political backing assuring a serious political follow-up.
A general European Citizens’ Assembly with no restrictions on its topics, with no clear process for a follow-up is more likely to disappoint participants and those who follow the public process. For European Citizens’ Assemblies to succeed, they need at least the commitment of the EU Commission to include their recommendations in legislative proposals or of the European Parliament to vote on them. Ideally, the EU treaties would be changed to allow for a European referendum to decide whether citizens’ recommendations should become law in case the EU institutions do not follow citizens’ recommendations. In the Parliament’s Constitutional Affairs Committee, the introduction of EU referenda found a majority as part of the proposals for treaty change. It was in a slightly chaotic vote in the Plenary that Christian-Democrats and right-wing MEPs deleted this proposal. The occasional use of European Citizens Panels for key policy questions as part of the Commission’s process to work out legislative proposals could be a good next step to prepare the ground for a next step towards introducing EU referenda.