Through a critical analysis of four types of participatory and deliberative methodologies – Participatory Budgeting, Citizens’ Assembly, Mixed Councils & Conferences on public policies, and Public Debates – the research provides insights into what has worked well and what has not.

Conducted by the CNRS team, the research delves into 21 case studies, evaluating each of them based on democratic performance indicators. These indicators include inclusivity, popular control (the degree of influence citizens have over the decision-making process), reflective judgement (citizens’ ability to make well-informed and thoughtful judgments), and transparency.

Additional evaluation criteria involve time-frame (the duration a particular DI methodology allows for in decision-making), complexity (the suitability of the DI methodology for handling complex issues), conflict management (the ability to mediate between citizens and stakeholders with differing views and interests), scale of the DI, and trust-building (the ability to enhance mutual trust among participants involved in the decision-making process). Moreover, the authors specifically focus on assessing each practice’s capacity to address environmental issues and climate change effectively.

Participatory Budgeting

Participatory Budgeting (PB) stands out as the most widely tested DI methodology globally. It aims to involve non-elected citizens in the conception and allocation of public finances. The research suggests that PB excels in mediating conflicts, enhancing transparency, popular control, inclusivity, community trust, and generating effective policy outcomes.

However, PB falls short in promoting wide timeframes, scalability, and managing complexity. One notable successful case of participatory budgeting was the Puerto Alegre PB experiment in Brazil during the 1980s. A more recent significant PB experiment was conducted by the municipality of Madrid in 2015, introducing the Decidim Madrid multi-use portal of citizen participation that supported digital and hybrid participatory processes, including PB.

Tartu, Estonia, also implemented a participatory budgeting system in 2013, enabling residents to decide on 1% of the city’s investment budget. Throughout the process, transparency and trust-building efforts were made, and citizens were educated about local government and budget administration.

Citizens’ Assemblies

Citizens’ Assemblies (CAs) are assemblies comprising randomly selected citizens who deliberate and make decisions on specific issues, aiming to provide a representative sample of the population. CAs usually excel in allowing long-term policy recommendations, fostering transparency, and ensuring inclusivity when properly implemented.

However, they tend to perform inadequately in enhancing people’s understanding of complex issues and producing binding policy outcomes. Several notable cases of CAs include the Irish Citizens’ Assembly on Climate Change (2016-2018), where 99 randomly selected citizens developed 13 non-binding policy recommendations. The Irish assembly faced criticisms of underrepresentation and participation conditions, but its recommendations had a significant impact on climate policy in Ireland.

The French Citizens Convention for Climate (2020-21), inspired by the Irish assemblies, faced challenges due to strikes, the COVID-19 pandemic, and political tensions, but its proposals gained visibility and influence, though implementation obstacles remained.

Similarly, the Scottish Climate Assembly (2020-21), an independent citizens’ assembly, involved 106 participants who developed 81 recommendations on climate change, including children’s perspectives through the Scottish Children’s Parliament.While the government responded, concerns were raised about the lack of specific timelines and objectives. Challenges encountered included understanding complex issues, promoting behavioral changes, facilitating dialogue, and trust-building among participants.

Mixed Councils & Conferences

Mixed Councils & Conferences on public policy bring together various stakeholders, including civil society organizations and public servants, to engage in dialogue and collaborative decision-making. They excel in harmonizing different scales and achieving long-term policies with tangible outcomes. However, inclusivity tends to suffer as the scale increases.

The Brazilian system of councils on public policies, which began at the local level and expanded to the state and federal levels, is a model that primarily addresses social and ecological issues. Notable examples of mixed councils include Brazil’s National Conference on Women’s Public Policy, which develops guidelines for women’s policies, including legislation against gender violence, and the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFE) (2021-22). The Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) Regional Conferences, which have allowed civil society organizations to participate since the 1970s, also serve as examples.

Public Debate

Public Debates (PDs) involve structured discussions and deliberations on specific public interest topics. They provide a platform for citizens to express their opinions, engage in dialogue, and contribute to the decision-making process.

Examples range from France’s Great National Debate, launched in 2019 in response to the Yellow Vests movement, to Puglia’s public debate in 2022 regarding the construction of an alternative highway corridor. While the Great National Debate faced criticism for its consultative nature and lack of binding decisions, the public participation in Puglia was affected by perceptions of predetermined decisions.

Conclusions

One key finding throughout the report is the importance of considering participants’ attitudes towards climate change in the selection process. The authors emphasize that without such consideration, only the “usual suspects” tend to participate, often overrepresenting the middle class and well-informed or climate-active citizens. This puts the goals of inclusivity, trust-building, and managing complexity at risk, particularly in the case of PB, PD, and mixed councils.

In summary, the research on Democratic Innovations offers valuable insights into the strengths and weaknesses of various participatory and deliberative methodologies. It emphasizes the importance of considering participants’ attitudes towards climate change, designing effective follow-up processes, and addressing hidden power dynamics that may influence the participatory and deliberative processes.

By incorporating these insights, PHOENIX can enhance the Democratic Innovations within the pilot projects to promote the development of the European Green Deal’s goals.