What citizens’ assemblies really achieve
When a Citizens’ Assembly finishes its work, one question almost inevitably follows: What happened to its recommendations? Were they implemented, partially implemented, or did they disappear into a drawer? It is a legitimate question. After all, citizens should not spend weeks deliberating, hearing from experts and working out compromises if politicians and public authorities simply carry on as before afterwards.
But perhaps the question is too narrow. A study by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) concludes that the impact of citizen participation can extend much further. It can change political decisions, public administrations and the relationship between institutions and the public – sometimes in ways that only become visible years later. Anyone who counts only implemented recommendations may therefore miss a significant part of what citizens’ assemblies actually achieve.
The visible impact
The most immediate form of impact is easy to measure: a Citizens’ Assembly recommends something, politicians agree and implement it. A recommendation can be fully implemented, partially implemented or not implemented at all. This record remains indispensable when assessing mini publics. Political impact should not be defined so broadly that almost any discussion ends up being counted as a success.
This is precisely where the JRC report “Impact of Citizen Engagement – Making a difference to policy, institutions and society” begins. It examines different forms of citizen participation and reaches an important conclusion: there can be numerous pathways between a participatory process and subsequent political change. The influence of participation may therefore be underestimated.
A recommendation may, for example, not be adopted immediately, while its underlying idea later finds its way into a political strategy or a law. A Citizens’ Assembly can put a previously neglected issue on the agenda or show political decision-makers what compromises a diverse group of citizens considers workable.
When institutions change
A second kind of impact is even less visible. Sometimes a Citizens’ Assembly changes not primarily an individual political decision but the institution that organised it. Public officials learn to work differently with citizens, participation becomes more firmly embedded in administrative procedures, and knowledge about such processes grows.
One JRC finding is particularly striking: 97 per cent of the 105 public administrations surveyed said they would conduct citizen engagement again. They cited better policymaking, greater responsiveness to societal needs and stronger democratic legitimacy among their reasons. The survey covered administrations in 20 EU countries.
Such an impact becomes particularly apparent when a one-off experiment develops into a permanent institution. Instead of deciding afresh for every political issue whether to convene a mini public, regular processes or permanent citizens’ assemblies are established.
What happens to the citizens themselves
A third kind of impact concerns the people themselves. Research indicates that participation in citizens’ assemblies can increase knowledge, skills and political self-efficacy. Intensive deliberation can also help bridge differences.
Nienke Meijer, chair of the Dutch National Citizens’ Assembly on Climate, described what this looked like after its first meetings. She said she was struck by the participants’ very different backgrounds, ages and opinions – and by how they remained “curious about each other despite those differences.”
Such effects may even extend beyond the participants. People who learn about a Citizens’ Assembly and its recommendations may become more willing to consider different political perspectives or develop greater trust in political processes. Much depends, however, on whether a mini public receives any public attention at all.
Impact does not automatically mean success
The JRC report therefore also contains a warning. Citizen participation can create expectations that are subsequently disappointed. Respondents repeatedly reported frustration about a lack of political impact – particularly slow follow-up and implementation of recommendations. Without political commitment to follow-up, the legitimacy and credibility of such processes may suffer.
This argues against an overly generous definition of “impact”. Ten recommendations that are not implemented cannot simply be justified by pointing out that the participants learned a great deal. Inviting citizens to deliberate on political questions creates an expectation that their work will be relevant to political decision-making.
Meijer put that expectation unusually clearly after the Dutch climate assembly had completed its work. Her message to politicians and public authorities was: “Don’t just say that citizens should be listened to more. Really listen to them. And then act on it.”
Impact starts before the first meeting
The JRC therefore argues that the intended impact should already be considered when designing a process. Before the first meeting takes place, it should be clear where the recommendations will enter the political decision-making process, who will be required to respond to them, and how the public will subsequently be able to see what has happened to them.
The OECD makes a similar point. A public authority should initiate a participation process only when there is genuine scope for citizens to influence decision-making. Otherwise, participation risks disappointing citizens and undermining trust in government.
A different kind of assessment
A single implementation rate is therefore not enough to assess a Citizens’ Assembly. At least four dimensions should be distinguished: the direct implementation of its recommendations, their broader political influence, institutional changes within politics and public administration, and societal effects on knowledge, trust and willingness to participate.
For climate citizens’ assemblies in particular, such an approach could produce surprising results. Some processes with what initially looks like a disappointing implementation record may have exerted considerable influence in the longer term. Conversely, a Citizens’ Assembly may see several minor recommendations implemented without producing any lasting change in political decision-making.
More than a list of recommendations
The question of implementation therefore remains indispensable. Citizens have a right to know what happens to their work. But an implementation rate is a metric, not yet an assessment of impact.
Perhaps that is the most important lesson from the new research: a Citizens’ Assembly leaves behind more than a list of recommendations. What also matters is the demonstrable mark it leaves on politics, institutions and society.