Empirical reflections on the three generation of mini-publics

This paper contributes to the thinking on the three generations of mini-publics as defined by editors Curato et al. (2020) and inspired by Cristina Lafont’s book Democracy without Shortcut (2019). The three generations pertain to the shifts in thinking about deliberative forums and their contributions - or lack thereof - to democratic systems. Scholarly research largely associates the first generation of mini-publics with one-off events comprising a consultative function to provide input to policy-making. The second generation of mini-publics is better ‘nested’ within democratic systems and is expected to better bridge the disconnect between people and power. However, questions are raised as to the extent to which mini-publics can disturb power inequalities in existing institutions to forge a more participatory society. The third generation of mini-publics encourages a rethink of the broader functionality of mini-publics in a democratic system and asks whether they are in fact necessary for democracy. Based on our decade-long experience of running mini-publics - citizen assemblies, juries, and councils - at local and national levels, this paper provides an empirical critique in response to the Curato’s et al. (2020)’s construct. Our practice reveals that an often overlooked area with respect to mini-publics is the exploration of what happens after a citizen assembly has ended so as to prevent it being a one-off event, akin to the type evidenced in the first generation of mini-publics. Key to this is the need for a type of democratic infrastructure that can keep citizens activated beyond the mini-public process, but in a manner that empowers the many and not the few - the latter being a shortcoming associated with the second generation of mini-publics. This paper addresses these points and outlines the practical prospects of mini-publics for participatory and deliberative democracy based on the findings from recent empirical research on deliberative forums. In particular, it draws on projects examining the post-Assembly process that explore how citizens can go beyond the remit of ‘participants’ who ‘merely’ make recommendations to advocating for them, undertake public speaking and monitor impact, accordingly initiating discussions about participatory democracy in their wider communities and the public sphere. Moreover, given that the COVID-19 pandemic has forced deliberative processes to shift to the digital sphere, this paper will also share reflections from one of the first Climate Assemblies to be entirely held online, outlining how the digital sphere can bring about novel modes of democratic innovation by enabling participants to shape the deliberative process, with clear implications for policy input and impact, balancing power inequalities, advocacy, and the deliberative quality of mini-publics. In doing so, the paper concludes with further provocations for the practice of deliberative democracy as a whole.