Citizens’ assemblies everywhere – but are they changing democracy?
Citizens’ assemblies have become established across Europe. Yet their influence on political decisions remains contested. Political scientist Richard Youngs is calling for a new phase in the development of citizen participation. Examples from East Belgium and Norway illustrate both the opportunities and the challenges involved.
Citizens’ assemblies have experienced a remarkable rise across Europe. What was considered a democratic experiment just a few years ago has now become part of everyday political life in many places. Randomly selected citizens deliberate on climate action, social issues and the future of democracy. Their recommendations are submitted to parliaments, governments and local councils.
But their growing success has also raised expectations. In an article published by Carnegie Europe on 7 October 2026, political scientist Richard Youngs poses an uncomfortable question: If citizens’ assemblies have become so widespread, why is democracy across Europe still in crisis?
Youngs describes a “quiet revolution” that has revitalised European democracy in recent years. At the same time, he warns against equating the spread of citizens’ assemblies with a fundamental improvement in democratic conditions. Successful individual processes do not necessarily demonstrate that democracy as a whole has become stronger.
From one-off assemblies to permanent institutions
In fact, citizens’ assemblies have already entered a new phase of development. East Belgium has had a permanent citizens’ dialogue since 2019. A Citizens’ Council determines the topics for new citizens’ assemblies and monitors the implementation of their recommendations. Parliament and government are required to publicly address the proposals.
Permanent structures are also emerging elsewhere. In Stavanger, Norway, a permanent citizens’ panel consisting of 33 randomly selected residents was established in 2026. Unlike in East Belgium, it is organised by an independent foundation.
Project manager Kristoffer Hatteland Endresen told the Norwegian newspaper Stavanger Aftenblad that the citizens’ panel was intended to strengthen trust in democracy rather than undermine elected political institutions. One of its members is Anne Linn Head, who said she had hoped to take part ever since the project was announced.
These examples demonstrate how differently permanent citizen participation can be organised. What they share is an attempt to move beyond involving randomly selected citizens in isolated, one-off events.
More participation does not automatically mean more democracy
Youngs observes that citizens’ assemblies have become an established feature of democratic processes in many European countries. At the same time, political forces that challenge democratic institutions have gained influence in some of those countries.
This does not mean that citizens’ assemblies are ineffective. But it does illustrate how difficult it is to demonstrate their impact on democracy as a whole. Political change also depends on parties, social movements, elections and public debate.
Youngs therefore calls for a second phase in the development of citizen participation. After years of focusing on establishing citizens’ assemblies and ensuring that their recommendations are taken seriously, new questions need to come to the fore: How should different participatory processes work together? How should conflicts between their recommendations be resolved? And who takes responsibility when a recommendation has unintended consequences?
What happens to the recommendations?
A recent example from East Belgium illustrates how challenging the political follow-up can be. In November 2025, a citizens’ assembly developed recommendations on how to make life more attractive for older people.
On 4 March 2026, assembly members discussed their proposals with parliamentarians and government representatives. Topics included social meeting places, mobility services and opportunities for retired professionals to support schools.
“These statements are an initial response, not a final one,” explained committee chair José Grommes (ProDG). Minister Lydia Klinkenberg pointed to existing services: “There are many projects, but they are often not sufficiently well known.”
Citizens raised the question of what criteria would be used to decide which proposals would actually be implemented. The government referred to further assessments and deliberations.
The exchange illustrates one of the strengths of the East Belgian model: recommendations do not simply disappear after being submitted. Political representatives must publicly explain how they intend to respond. Whether concrete changes result is subsequently reviewed.
Who takes responsibility?
The question of political accountability is also central to Youngs’ argument. So far, discussions about citizens’ assemblies have largely focused on how to increase the influence of their recommendations. Less attention has been paid to who should be held accountable if decisions based on those recommendations turn out badly.
This issue becomes increasingly important when mini publics move beyond developing individual proposals and begin influencing complex political decisions on a regular basis. Recommendations from different assemblies may contradict one another. Greater climate action, affordable housing and limited public budgets, for example, cannot always be reconciled easily.
Youngs therefore argues that citizens’ assemblies should be understood as part of a broader democratic system. They should complement elected parliaments, political parties and civil society organisations rather than replace them.
East Belgium demonstrates both opportunities and limitations
East Belgium’s permanent citizens’ dialogue offers an interesting approach. There, the process does not end when a citizens’ report is submitted. The Citizens’ Council monitors what happens to the recommendations and can question parliament and government about their progress.
Thomas Förster, a former chair of the permanent Citizens’ Council, emphasised in 2024 how important it was to him to strengthen the relationship between citizens and political representatives. He hoped that both sides would engage more closely with one another and rebuild mutual trust. This is precisely where permanent citizens’ assemblies may make an important contribution: they can create spaces where people do not merely express their views once, but continue to engage with political decisions over time.
Yet even this model needs to evolve. An evaluation of the citizens’ dialogue found that some people perceived the processes as little more than a political “token gesture”. Greater transparency about implementation and better public communication were proposed as ways to address this perception.
The evaluation also found that extensive sets of recommendations could create a considerable workload for the relevant parliamentary committees. It therefore recommended defining the topics of future citizens’ assemblies more precisely.
These experiences demonstrate that establishing a permanent Citizens’ Assembly does not automatically guarantee political influence. Clear responsibilities, transparent decisions and regular reviews of outcomes are essential.
The next stage of development
According to Youngs, citizen participation has reached a turning point. Citizens’ assemblies have become increasingly widespread. The question now is what contribution they can actually make to democracy.
Achieving this requires more than constructive discussions and convincing citizens’ reports. Mini publics need to be connected to parliaments, governments and other forms of democratic participation. Their recommendations require public responses, and their implementation must be open to scrutiny.
East Belgium demonstrates how such connections can be established institutionally. Stavanger is experimenting with a different approach, in which an independent organisation runs a permanent citizens’ panel.
Whether these developments will fundamentally strengthen democracy remains an open question. The decisive issue is no longer simply how many citizens’ assemblies exist, but what difference they actually make.