If an outcome of a citizens assemblies is to be invoked, but then ultimately fails who should be held to account - the Citizens or the Government? A further issue in opposition to Renwick’s claim regards the means of deliberation itself. Holt (1993) found that deliberation can lead to individuals making decisions they later regret. To deliberate effectively our surveillance system, which monitors threatening stimuli, shifts our conscious state away from the task towards the best decision (Marcus et al 2002). This shift is thought to cause unease and anxiety and can be used to explain why we often hesitate when forced to decide. If decision-making involves difficult emotional engagement, adequate motivation is needed to prevent citizens ‘passing the buck’ and refusing to engage in deliberation. Accountability, high stakes, and diversity were given by Marcus et al (2002) as adequate motivating conditions. However, how much or little is needed for effective deliberation varies depending on each citizen's environment, personality, and cultural norms, factors which Renwick and other deliberative theorists have disregarded in the design of citizens assemblies. Without a more complete knowledge of how we deliberate citizens assemblies cannot formulate a democratically valid procedure to account for historical, structural, and psychological impediments as well as heuristics (information short cuts). Notwithstanding, that conclusions drawn, and policies established via citizens assemblies, which have not considered means of deliberation cannot be reliable. This ultimately discounts Renwick’s claim. Foucault (2004, pp. 15-16) considers that “Politics is the continuation of war by other means”. Here he is referring to agonism. Agonistic democracy is one which emphasises positive aspects of conflicts and disputes the idea that collaboration is what makes a ‘better democracy’, which is in direct contract to the fundamental principle of citizens assemblies. Agnostic practices highlight the importance of conflict in political relations and that it is only through destructive debates that we can live in a real democracy. Through a system of agonistic governance, democratic decisions are only temporary cessations that can be adapted to suit changing socio-cultural norms and practices. Thus, it is considered that endorsing agonistic principle is more democratic than supporting collaborative governances. However, for this to happen conflict, as opposed to collaboration, is necessary. It is often assumed that collaboration is a key element of a ‘better democracy’. Yet, for many, it is concerning that a ‘better democracy’ is often thought of as one that is based on agreement and cooperation. Therefore, other democratic ideologies must be considered. For example, counter- governance 8 challenges the idea that citizens assemblies represent a better way of doing democracy. It advocates for citizen participation beyond collaboration
8 Rikki John Dean, ‘Counter-Governance: Citizen Participation Beyond Collaboration’, Politics and Governance , 6.1 (2018), 180-188 <http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i1.1221> [accessed 14 July 2021].
26
Made with FlippingBook HTML5