How exactly can citizens’ assemblies be a foundation for a full-scale model of deliberative democracy? Marcin Gerwin pitches a big idea.

Can you imagine a country where politicians are no longer fighting each other to win more votes in the elections? Where the government is accountable to people at all times? Where the government is actually following the will of the people? Where no one is arguing in the parliament because there is no parliament?

Citizens’ assemblies are gaining popularity and recognition around the world as an effective form of democratic decision-making. In countries like the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Australia, Canada, and Poland, among others, citizens’ assemblies are being organised on the national and local level on various topics. All of this is wonderful but the potential of deliberative democracy is much bigger than just single events, even if they were to be embedded in constitutions and were given binding power, like referenda. Citizens’ assemblies can become a foundation of a full-scale deliberative democracy, where there is no longer a need for general elections at all. How would it work?

The Waldenia model for deliberative democracy presented here is based on a simple idea.

The design is as follows. As a first step, citizens take part in a national level citizens’ assembly. Participants identify their priorities, goals, and values in a given policy area—be it environment, healthcare or agriculture. Next, they hire the person that they feel would be best equipped to implement the policy priorities they have chosen. The person recruited in this way becomes a minister. The final step is the implementation of appropriate policies (that align with the national assembly’s vision) by the minister, for the term of four or five years. During this time, oversight mechanisms are available. At the end of the term, the cycle is repeated.

The goal of the Waldenia model is to allow citizens to create policies or develop solutions on a topic of their interest through deliberative processes. Furthermore, it aims to ensure that the outcomes of these processes can be implemented and that people have control over how it is done, and by whom.

The Policy Assemblies

The citizens’ assembly with the aim of formulating policy priorities in a given policy area—that is, the policy assembly—will convene in monthly weekend sessions (and online meetings in between, if needed) that could last around six months. There could be 10 to 12 policy assemblies happening at the same time. Once the policy priorities are drafted, a check for cross-cutting issues should be carried out before the final votes are cast. Policy assemblies should also have the ability to initiate single-topic citizens’ assemblies for issues that they either consider important enough for the society to deal with directly, or ones that seem so time consuming on their own that they would divert too much time and attention from the priority-drafting process. For single-topic citizens’ assemblies, a new group of members would be randomly selected.

Recruiting a Minister

Once a list of policy priorities in a given policy area is created, a job opening is announced. Candidates can start applying for a ministerial position in the said area, and the application process is followed by interviews with the most prospective persons (only selected candidates would be invited for interviews). The interviews are conducted by the very policy assembly that created the list of policy priorities, with the assistance of human resources specialists or facilitators to structure the interview process. Eventually, the policy assembly makes a decision about employing a person to become a minister for the forthcoming term.

When all policy assemblies have chosen their respective ministers, a government is formed. Representative functions, such as meetings with other heads of state, can be performed by the minister of international affairs. In order to improve cooperation within the government, a lead facilitator can be appointed to run and/or join government meetings and organise cross-sectoral working groups with civil servants from the relevant ministries.

Accountability Mechanisms

Basic oversight is provided by the rules and procedures of law-making that require transparency and public participation in the process. The functioning of ministries is also expected to be fully transparent, with annual reports on the progress of implementation of the decisions made by policy assemblies. The quality of the legislative process, as well as its transparency, would be monitored by the Oversight Council. Its personnel could follow, for example, how workshops for stakeholders are organised when creating a new law. In terms of soft oversight, the policy assembly would also have the ability to summon the minister to reason his actions, if said actions appear questionable.

As a general principle, a decision made by any minister can be stopped, amended, reversed, or rejected by the veto assembly, which would be initiated either by a group of citizens (upon collecting a certain number of signatures), by the policy assembly, or by the Citizens’ Senate. A decision of the citizens’ assembly would be final and binding. What is worth noting is that the policy assembly would have the power to initiate a veto assembly rather than to investigate the matter on its own. The rationale here is that becoming a member of the policy assembly should not be too demanding in terms of the time that is required to take part in it.

In case the actions of the minister are no longer in accordance with the priorities laid out by the policy assembly, the assembly has the power to recall him or her at any time. Alternatively, it would be possible to initiate a recall assembly by the Citizens’ Senate or by a group of citizens that collected a certain number of signatures.

The Citizens’ Senate

The Citizens’ Senate would be a permanent body, with a third of its members exchanged every one-and-a-half years. It would be selected by lot from a pool of willing alumni of previous citizens’ assemblies, so that its members will have a previous experience with a deliberative process. Its main role would be to appoint the head of the coordinators of all deliberative processes (responsible for the design of the citizens’ assemblies and for hiring other coordinator teams), judges of the Supreme Court, judges of the Constitutional Court and members of the Oversight Council. Additionally, it will have the ability of initiating single-topic, veto and recall assemblies. Single-topic citizens’ assemblies could also be initiated by the citizens themselves upon collecting a certain number of signatures.

Accountability of the coordinators of the deliberative processes would be ensured in two basic ways: (1) a citizens’ assembly would be able to dismiss a facilitator or the whole coordinating team and choose a new one and (2) any coordinator or a facilitator can be dismissed by the Citizens’ Senate.

The Waldenia Model as a Way Forward?

In the Waldenia model, people exercise their power through citizens’ assemblies. They set the political course for the country and—for practical reasons—leave the implementation in the hands of hired personnel. There are no general elections or referenda at all. Equal opportunity is ensured for everyone to receive an invitation to participate in the citizens’ assembly, and it is a fundamental principle that everyone can provide input to citizens’ assemblies in the form of proposals for solutions, comments or other suggestions (the openness principle). The whole government is accountable to the people at all times. Sounds like fun?

About the Author

Marcin Gerwin, PhD is a specialist in deliberative democracy and sustainability from Poland. He designs and coordinates citizens’ assemblies. He is coordinating the Center for Climate Assemblies and is the author of Citizens’ Assemblies: Guide to Democracy that Works.