Are Deliberative Mini-Publics Attractive Only to Citizens Living in Consolidated Democracies? A Comparison Between Europe and Asia

Democratic innovations such as citizens’ assemblies and referendums have gained prominence as tools to enhance legitimacy, trust, and inclusion in contemporary democracies. While existing research has illuminated the individual-level drivers of support for these mechanisms, empirical evidence has largely been confined to Western democracies, leaving open the question of whether such findings generalize beyond Europe and North America. This research note addresses this gap by examining public support for deliberative mini-publics (DMPs) across ten countries: six European cases (France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, United Kingdom) and four Asian cases (India, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand). The design captures variation across both region and regime type, from consolidated democracies to hybrid systems with authoritarian legacies, as well as differences in experiences with deliberative practices. Our findings reveal three main insights. First, some traditional drivers shape support in the same direction across contexts, but their strength varies. Second, the most powerful and universal force relates to citizens’ willingness to see less conflict in politics and more room for deliberation. Third, strong regional differences emerge regarding political trust: in Europe, distrust of institutions fosters support for DMPs, whereas in Asia, trust emerges as a central driver. These patterns show that levels of democratization mediate how individual attitudes translate into support for DMPs, underscoring the importance of political context. By situating DMPs in a broader comparative perspective, the study advances debates on the global prospects of democratic innovations.