burden of participation because she is not likely to directly affect the result, yet will share its benefits even if she refuses to participate” 5 . This can result in lower levels of participation forcing the organisers of the initiatives to either allow for self-selection or attend to direct recruitment. Both sampling methods threaten the validity of citizens assemblies and how democratic Renwick claims them to be. Firstly, self-selection in civic participation often leads to homogeneous groups. Research by Conway 6 found that these groups are likely to be white, college- educated, and middle class. This is threatening to the betterment of democracy as homogenous groups are likely to have akin opinions thus reducing constructive deliberation and collaboration that would have otherwise occurred. Subsequently, any outcomes drawn would not be democratic and would be harming the name of democracy. Secondly, homogeneity threatens the legitimacy of citizens assemblies outcomes as it prevents different views from being expressed. Admittingly, direct recruitment such as random selection may be inclusive, but inclusivity does not guarantee representation. Without equal representation, it would be naive to claim citizen assemblies represent a better way of doing democracy. Citizens are more willing to actively deliberate if they believe value will be weighted to their decisions. Thus, deciding on how outcomes of assemblies are implemented into political policy is central in placing citizens' assemblies in terms of the betterment of democracy. One issue in terms of enacting outcomes is deciding which decisions, if any, should be taken forward. If citizens' assemblies were to better democracy you would expect all outcomes to be taken forwards and equally weighted. However, in practice, this seems not to be the case. Farrell’s 7 report on the Irish citizen assembly highlighted bias towards implementing conclusions on abortion issues and climate change, yet, over 2 years later has yet to address the other 3 topics, despite commitments to respond to each recommendation of the assembly. Similar patterns are mirrored in the constitutional convention in which only a few recommendations impacted policy. This opposes Renwick’s claim as it allows policymakers to cherry-pick outcomes that enhance their own political agenda. This is in violation of fundamental democratic principles and opposes the very purpose of citizens assemblies, which is to allow citizens to actively engage in deliberation and influence policy. It has been widely suggested that outcomes of assemblies should be enforced by law. However, we must then confront the concern of accountability and responsibility. 5 David M. Ryfe, ‘Does deliberative democracy work?’, Annual Review of Political Science, 8 (2005), 49-71 <https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.032904.154633> [accessed 14 July 2021]. 6 M. Margaret Conway, Political Participation in the United States , 3 rd ed (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2002). [accessed 14 July 2021]. 7 David M. Farrell, Jane Suiter and Clodagh Harris, ‘“Systematizing” constitutional deliberation: the 2016–18 citizens’ assembly in Ireland’, Irish Political Studies , 34.1 (2019), 113-123 <10.1080/07907184.2018.1534832> [accessed 14 July 2021].
25
Made with FlippingBook HTML5