Deliberation at the Edge: Citizens’ Assemblies and Democratic Resilience in Georgia

The article explores what citizens’ assemblies can—and cannot—achieve in hybrid regimes through a comparative analysis of two local deliberative experiments conducted in Georgia between 2023 and 2025. Although the democratic benefits of citizens’ assemblies are well documented in consolidated Western democracies, far less is known about their performance in politically constrained environments marked by fragile institutions, low trust, and uneven accountability. Drawing on original qualitative data from assemblies in Rustavi and Ozurgeti, the study theorizes deliberation at the “edge” of democracy, where participatory innovation collides with institutional and political limits. Empirically, the analysis is based on 25 semi-structured interviews with assembly participants, organizers, and local officials conducted immediately after completion of citizen assemblies in both towns of Rustavi and Ozurgeti and again two years later. This longitudinal design allowed us to trace not only initial perceptions of deliberation but also how civic learning, trust, legitimacy, and engagement evolved over time. Methodologically, the study offers a rare participant-centred account of the short- and medium-term effects of deliberative innovations in a hybrid regime. We introduce a theoretical framework that focuses on two factors shaping the democratic impact of deliberation. The first is political responsiveness, meaning whether authorities are willing to listen to citizens and act on their input. The second is administrative capacity, meaning whether institutions have the skills and resources to organize assemblies and turn their outcomes into action. We argue that it is the combination of these two factors—not regime type alone—that determines whether citizens’ assemblies empower participants or instead lead to disappointment and cynicism. The two Georgian cases followed different paths, but both proved fragile. In Rustavi, strong civic enthusiasm and a relatively open local government encouraged civic learning, empowerment, and early trust. However, weak administrative capacity, poor coordination, and limited follow-up meant that only some recommendations were implemented. Over time, participants’ initial optimism turned into disappointment—a pattern we describe as “Frustrated Hope.” In Ozurgeti, by contrast, the assembly was well organized and professionally run, showing stronger bureaucratic capacity. Yet weak political responsiveness meant that citizens’ input had little real influence. Instead, the process mainly improved the municipality’s public image without sustaining citizen engagement. This pattern reflects what we call “Performative Legitimation.” In both cases, citizens’ assemblies helped participants learn and build civic skills, regardless of the political system. However, trust, legitimacy, and continued engagement depended on whether citizens’ input actually influenced decisions. When authorities were unresponsive, participation felt symbolic. When institutions lacked capacity, initial enthusiasm turned into frustration. The findings show that in hybrid regimes, citizens’ assemblies can have mixed effects. They can raise democratic and deliberation awareness among individuals, but they may fail to strengthen—and can even weaken—trust in institutions. Citizens’ assemblies are not a substitute for democratic reform. Without political will and administrative capacity, they risk becoming empty exercises rather than tools for strengthening democracy. Keywords: deliberative democracy; citizens’ assemblies; hybrid regimes; democratic resilience; civil society; Georgia