The experience gained thanks to the explosion of participatory initiatives over the last 10 years reveals an important fact: Citizens selected by lot are capable of producing qualitative proposals on complex subjects through deliberation.
Despite this, participants in such initiatives have often seen their proposals given little or no consideration by the elected representatives who were supposed to deal with them. The examples of the French Citizens’ Climate Convention and the G1000 in Belgium are particularly emblematic. Only 12% of the measures proposed by the French convention were taken up unchanged, and none of the G1000’s proposals really influenced the Belgian political agenda.
If we repeat this pattern, we run the risk of discrediting citizen participation as a possible avenue for democratic renewal.
Institutionalisation and co-construction to strengthen the impact of participation
Faced with this alarming situation, the Belgian Deliberative Committees have come up with two solutions: the institutionalisation of the process, and the active co-construction of proposals between elected representatives and citizens. Rather than a proliferation of ad hoc arrangements, the deliberative committees are part of the regular workings of the parliamentary assemblies that use them, alongside the traditional parliamentary committees. Secondly, unlike a majority of initiatives, elected representatives actively deliberate with citizens and co-construct proposals. What appeared to some at first like a risky gamble seems to have paid off for Wallonia’s first Deliberative Committee, which followed in the steps of Brussels recent Deliberative Committees.
The first Deliberative Committee at the Walloon Parliament in Belgium came to an end on 24 February. For 5 days, 10 MPs and 30 citizens chosen by lot worked on the thorny issue of the democratic crisis. Although Deliberative Committees have existed in the Brussels region since 2019, this was the first time that MPs and citizens had worked together on an equal footing in the Walloon Parliament. What conclusions can be drawn from this experience?
Institutionalisation: Some progress, some concerns
How the deliberative committees operate is defined in the rules of procedure of the assemblies that use them. These rules include a clear process for following up recommendations. They must be examined by a parliamentary committee and then by the full parliament. MPs must then justify the outcome of each proposal. This is a significant step forward compared to the overwhelming majority of participatory systems, which neglect this follow-up phase. Another advantage of institutionalisation is that Deliberative Committees can be initiated both by MPs and by citizens through petitions. The relatively low threshold of signatures required gives the public real power to set the agenda.
But is institutionalisation a panacea? Deliberative Committees take place within the parliament itself and adopt certain parliamentary codes, which can have an impact on deliberations with citizens. At the end of the process, participants are invited to share amendments to the proposals put forward. While MPs are used to this type of work, it is less obvious for citizens drawn by lot. This risks giving elected representatives the upper hand.
It was also hard not to notice the setting in which the discussions took place: A parliamentary chamber, with its individual microphones, fixed tables and all the formal symbolism that comes with such a building. Such an intimidating setting makes it hard for the shyest of citizens to speak out. When will we see spaces in our parliaments that are more conducive to citizen participation?
Does co-construction pay off?
The recommendations of Wallonia’s Deliberative Committee were examined last April, first by a parliamentary committee, then in plenary. The benefits of co-construction between citizens and elected representatives were then apparent. The MPs who had taken part in the Deliberative Committee all took the floor to defend both the process and the recommendations. It is hard to imagine how MPs could have passed those on within parliament had they not actively taken part in the process. “I want you to know that, wherever we are after these elections, we will be the guardians of the recommendations that we have all just approved here”, stated the chair of the Deliberative Committee, Marie-Martine Schyns.
The MPs who had taken part in the Deliberative Committee were acutely aware that they would be identified by their colleagues as co-developers of the recommendations. They therefore shared a real sense of responsibility for the outcome of the process. This was particularly noticeable when the recommendations were being finalised. “We don’t want our colleagues who are going to take up our proposals to be wondering what we wanted to do with them”, warned one MP about a recommendation that seemed far-fetched to him.
Elected representatives were specifically invited to share their reservations about the relevance and feasibility of the proposals. The idea was not to reduce the ambition of the proposals, but to open up a transparent dialogue with citizens on the possible difficulties of applying them, and the best ways to overcome such difficulties. This differs greatly from models that exclude elected representatives from the deliberative process: rather than risking a wholesale unravelling of the proposals, as was the case, for example, at the end of the Citizens’ Climate Convention in France, elected representatives are invited into the deliberative arena to co-construct the recommendations with the citizens, and then to defend them.
Bringing elected representatives and citizens together: A balancing act
Bringing elected representatives and citizens closer together does nevertheless raise a number of questions. The majority of participatory initiatives exclude elected representatives from the discussions in order to protect themselves from their influence. The balance of voices between elected representatives and citizens is a major point of attention in the running of joint participatory processes.
Wallonia’s Deliberative Committee suggests a number of practical design precautions. First, the presence of experienced facilitators is necessary to balance the exchange of opinion, even more so than for non-mixed mini-publics. It is also possible to set aside time for citizens to exchange thoughts without parliamentarians, in order to facilitate a more qualitative and even-footed deliberation with elected officials later on. Finally, the ratio of MPs to citizens is important. A recent study has shown that when elected representatives are in a very small minority, their presence no longer has a negative impact on the quality of discussions.
About the authors:
Victor Lauret is a consultant in participatory democracy for Dreamocracy, the consultancy group that facilitated Wallonia’s first Deliberative Committee.
Stephen Boucher is the founder of Dreamocracy and actively supported the design and facilitation of this first Deliberative Committee.
