From democratic theory to democratic practices: methodological challenges in implementing deliberative processes

Across established democracies, a widespread assessment reveals a significant erosion of institutional legitimacy, characterized by waning public trust and a perceived disconnect between citizens and their representative bodies. In response to this democratic deficit, democratic innovations have been designed to supplement or transform representative democratic institutions. Among these, deliberative innovations (such as citizens' assemblies, deliberative polls, and mini publics) have emerged as prominent solutions. By prioritizing reasoned discussion, diversity of perspective, inclusion, mutual respect and political equality among participants, these models aim to bolster the procedural legitimacy of the democratic process. While the normative appeal of deliberation is well-established and the general principles informing deliberative democratic theory have been substantially discussed in political philosophy scholarship, what pertains to the translation of abstract democratic principles into concrete democratic deliberative practices is still a matter of concern, given that such a translation is fraught with a complex set of methodological challenges. This paper examines these modalities of translation. By analyzing the gap between deliberative intent and practical execution, it focuses on the institutional conditions under which innovation leads to genuine re-legitimation rather than mere "participation circus". To do that, it explores two methodological challenges related to two structural aspects of any deliberative process, namely procedural neutrality and equality. The first challenge is built on the fact that during the process the "neutral" space of deliberation can be threaten by the structural influence of facilitators, experts, or organisers. The second relies on the fact that moral equality (broadly understood here as the principle according to which every participant has equal human worth and right to be heard) is very complex to implement, and simple "formal" equality (such as giving everyone equal time of speaking) is not enough to reach it given – but not only - that epistemic injustices can hamper the fairness of the deliberative process. Besides being problematic in themselves, these two methodological challenges are even more relevant when taken together, because the steering process of deliberation is confronted to a paradox: while - theoretically - the former demands a non-interventionist position to avoid manipulation, the latter often necessitates active, non-neutral interventions to lessen social hierarchies between participants that may marginalize voices of minority individuals from being heard as equals. Given the existence of such methodological challenges, is there a right way to avoid procedural injustices calling into question the overall quality of the deliberative democratic innovation? If yes, how, and with which methodological principles or decisions? More generally, how should such methodological tensions be addressed in a way that is suited to keep the most the quality of ideal deliberative principles ? The paper addresses these questions in reflexively and interpretatively building on the experiences produced in the framework of an action-research project (in partnership with public authorities) led in the Canton of Geneva (Switzerland) devoted to the theoretical justification, the design and the implementation of deliberative forums in several cities between 2020 and 2024. Such research (which is still going on) is epistemologically and methodologically quite original, as it has allowed a team of political theorist not only to envision – as usually - a principled defense of a conception of democracy, but also to implement it in real political settings.