Citizens’ assemblies: Between funding and legislation

Citizens’ assemblies were long a rarity in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. The state has now gained its first practical experience with them – and ahead of the 2026 state election, the idea has found its way into several parties’ manifestos. The differences are less about whether citizens’ assemblies should exist than about how they should be used: funded as individual projects, deployed at the local level or given a permanent legal basis?

Until only a few years ago, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania was one of Germany’s laggards when it came to randomly selected citizens’ assemblies. That has since begun to change. The development became particularly visible in Malchin, where randomly selected citizens deliberated on the future of the city’s energy and heat supply in 2024. The city council subsequently explicitly instructed the mayor to take the recommendations into account or implement them as part of the municipal heat planning process.

The case is significant because it illustrates what ultimately matters in a citizens’ assembly: not merely the deliberations themselves, but what politicians do with the results. The Citizens’ Assembly Database now records further processes in the state, including in Greifswald, Neubrandenburg and Röbel. Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania is therefore no longer a blank spot on the map.

The SPD and The Left favor funding

In its election platform, the SPD cites the promotion of citizens’ councils as part of its record in government. It states: “We have strengthened children’s and youth councils, promote citizens’ assemblies, and are committed to a style of politics in which everyone comes to the table to discuss important issues and find solutions together.”

The Left Party announces its intention to “more strongly promote participatory formats that strengthen democratic decision-making, such as children’s and youth parliaments or citizens’ assemblies.”

State funding for citizens' assemblies

This is in line with the government’s policy to date. The state already supports the project “Citizens’ Assemblies for MV”. Minister-President Manuela Schwesig also announced her own “Minister-President’s Citizens’ Assembly,” in which randomly selected citizens from different generations will deliberate.

However, neither the SPD nor The Left are promising a general legal framework for citizens’ assemblies. So far, the focus has primarily been on support and individual initiatives.

The Greens want firm rules

The Greens go one step further. In early 2026, their parliamentary group introduced a Public Participation Act that would have explicitly created a legal basis for randomly selected citizens’ assemblies convened by state authorities and municipalities. It would also have regulated access to population registers for the purpose of random selection.

The bill failed to secure a majority in the state parliament. When Schwesig later announced her own citizens’ assembly, Green parliamentary group leader Constanze Oehlrich responded critically: “Anyone who genuinely wants citizens’ assemblies creates the legal conditions for them.” Citizens’ assemblies, she said, must not become the Minister-President’s “election campaign accessory”.

The dividing line between the SPD and the Greens is therefore less about basic support for citizens’ assemblies than about permanence: the SPD wants to fund and use them, while the Greens want to establish a permanent legal framework.

BSW and PdF want more participation

The BSW also explicitly mentions citizens’ assemblies. Its manifesto calls for an “expansion of citizen participation, for example through citizens’ assemblies and referendums on important local decisions”. Its emphasis is therefore primarily on the municipal level.

The Party of Progress (PdF) goes further. It wants randomly selected citizens’ assemblies to be introduced at state level as well. Its manifesto says that direct democracy should be supplemented by “popular initiatives, citizens’ assemblies, fair thresholds”. Citizens’ assemblies, it argues, can help “discuss complex issues on the basis of facts”.

Other parties remain vague

The election manifestos of the CDU and FDP contain no similarly specific proposal for randomly selected citizens’ assemblies. The AfD opposes citizens' assemblies. Some of these parties advocate greater citizen participation, stronger local government or more direct democracy in general. But that is not the same as a citizens’ assembly based on random selection.

This is particularly noteworthy in the case of the CDU. The state’s first widely noticed citizens’ assembly took place in Malchin under a CDU mayor. After the process, Axel Müller said he had been “positively surprised by the interest shown by the members of the Citizens’ Assembly and also by the result”. Local experience and a party’s state-level manifesto do not necessarily point in the same direction.

The real point of contention

Ahead of the state election, the question is therefore less whether citizens’ assemblies can be useful in principle. Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania now has enough practical experience to demonstrate that they can. The dispute is instead about what place they should have in the future.

The SPD and the Left favor funding and individual processes. The BSW wants to use citizens’ assemblies primarily for local decisions. The Party of Progress calls for them at state level as well. The Greens want to establish a statutory basis. Other parties have not made an explicit commitment.

Practical experience also shows why these differences matter. A citizens’ assembly needs rules governing random selection, composition and access to population registers. More important still is what happens after the deliberations. Malchin offers one possible answer: elected representatives formally consider the recommendations and give them a place in the subsequent decision-making process.

From experiment to political issue

The situation in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania has therefore changed significantly within just a few years. Citizens’ assemblies have developed from rare local experiments into an issue in state politics.

After the election, it will become clear whether they will continue to be funded mainly as individual projects – or whether the new state parliament will turn them into a permanently regulated instrument. That is currently the clearest dividing line between the parties.

Note: The image accompanying this article was generated using AI.