Non-deliberative democratic functions of citizens’ assemblies

In debates on democratic innovations, citizens’ assemblies (CA) are usually categorised as deliberative mini-publics. Clearly, CA exhibit central features of deliberative mini-publics: participants are randomly selected to deliberate on matters of common concern, in spaces that are to some significant extent protected from the power asymmetries and interests that influence deliberations in the parliament and the broader public sphere. However, the description of CA as deliberative institutions is insufficient. A central feature of the British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly and the Irish Citizens’ Assembly, which are often highlighted as rare examples of politically influential CA, is that they were authorised to define the subject matter of a referendum. That competence rendered the CA potential vehicles for political change based on institutional power rather than argumentative power: they not only sought to increase the deliberative quality of public debates by providing thoughtful recommendations, but also influenced a decision-making process that was largely independent of established parliamentary procedures. Based on a review of characteristics of the practices of selected CA, the paper challenges the widespread perception of CA as deliberative democratic innovations and argues that an important quality of CA is their capacity to pluralise political decision-making processes. This shift of perspective enables a more accurate description of current practices of CA and, in addition, can open novel perspectives for a debate on possibilities to further develop the instrument of CA.