What Works Centre on Deliberative Democracy — Citizens' Convention on UK Democracy

2. The creation of an international What Works Center on Deliberative Democracy

The US Department of State frames the challenge to democracy succinctly: “Public distrust and the failure of governments to deliver equitable and sustainable economic and political progress has fuelled political polarization and the rise of leaders who are undermining democratic norms and institutions.” (https://www.state.gov/summit-for-democracy/)

Deliberative democracy refers to a family of democratic engagement methods that offers groups of citizens (inclusive and randomly selected) the time, information, and conditions to give their considered judgment on tough issues. Its benefits include better decisions on complex issues and overcoming political gridlock. Citizens who take part in these processes are smaller in number but representative of the diversity of backgrounds and experiences of the population in question. They are often transformed, reporting decreased disaffection, increased trust in government, increased political efficacy, and greater participation in political and civic behaviours such as voting and volunteering (Felicetti et al., 2016; Allen, 2023). Efforts are now underway to institutionalize these processes as a part of the overall democratic infrastructure in local and national levels and to leverage technological innovations for online deliberations (Collier, 2019) and automated facilitation (Landemore, 2022) to broaden participation. Finally, as institutions that integrate both the best available evidence and an unprecedented diversity of perspectives in a rigorous and fair process, deliberative democracy is paradigmatic of the Biden Administration’s aims with the Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-based Policymaking (link) and Executive Order 13985 on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government (link).

These findings suggest that deliberative democracy has earned a place on the agenda at the Summit of Democracy as a next-generation political institution for responsive, resilient, and thriving democracy.

This proposal concerns the Global What Works Centre (WWC) for Deliberative Democracy, which would offer free and accessible assessment, advice, and advocacy to support context-sensitive implementation and institutionalization of deliberative democracy around the globe. In the sections that follow, we outline a vision for a Global WWC for Deliberative Democracy, our year one plan to realize this vision, and our asks of the Summit for Democracy to support this work.

Vision for a What Works Centre

In our vision, the WWC coordinates with existing national and multinational organizations, such as OECD and USAID’s DRG Center to aggregate, generate, and translate evidence for best practices in deliberation, helping realize more and better deliberative democracy around the globe and decisions that are more effective, legitimate, and equitable. More and better deliberative democracy requires:

· Evidence-based tools, procedural knowledge, and capacity-building (advice). Deliberative processes are complex undertakings. Free, evidence-based advice, tools, and capacity-building helps accelerate learning and quality implementation across contexts.

· Measured advocacy. Using existing evidence to make measured, transparent claims about the promise, pitfalls, knowns and unknowns of deliberative democracy, in different contexts and for different purposes, compared with alternatives. Reaching out to both civil society and to political decision makers for commitment to listen

· Oversight to ensure that processes are delivered with integrity and can be considered legitimate. Deliberative institutions like citizens’ assemblies and deliberative polls are gaining traction and beginning to proliferate. As such it is increasingly important to call out thoughtless or sloppy applications of these and other deliberative processes, as such applications can lead to undesirable outcomes and undermine the legitimacy and credibility deliberative democracy.

The following diagram describes the relationship between the four functions of the WWC (evidence, advice, advocacy, and oversight), the basic activities of the four functions, and what governance of the WWC could look like.

They are more fully described in these bullets, with potential partners and lengthier descriptions of their activities.

EVIDENCE

Partners: International cohort of think tanks, academic institutions, multilateral organizations, NGOs

Aggregating and assessing existing evidence for deliberative mini-publics [DMPs] and other deliberative and participatory processes

· Pulling together existing evidence from various sources, such as the OECD dataset, Participedia, academic institutions and journals, to formally assess evidence for various forms of one-off and institutionalised deliberative mini-publics. This includes identifying knowns, unknowns, uncertainties, and gaps

· Calibrating our advice, advocacy, and oversight functions according to evidentiary standards

· Disseminating evidence in an open-access, accessible, easy to use way

Generating new evidence

· Conducting independent evaluations of deliberative and participatory processes

· Assessing the merits of alternative deliberative practices and approaches in underrepresented and marginalized communities and countries of the world

· Funding / supporting new research and evidence for DMPs and participatory processes, particularly where there are gaps

· Capacity-building in public participation organizations and institutions for institutional learning and reiteration

· Capacity building of local, national, or international political authorities to prepare, support, and follow-up to deliberative and participative processes

· Upscaling systematically through building strong public spheres and measures to engage more citizens

Gather evidence and conduct broader research on legal, structural, social conditions and considerations for successful implementation of deliberative processes and what is needed to conduct them faster, easier, higher-quality, and achieve more impact

ADVICE

Partners: newDemocracy, Mosaic Lab, MASS LBP, FIDE, DemocracyNext, People Powered; Democracy R&D, Center for European Citizens’ Democracy; other organizations globally who implement DMPs (known for high level expertise, experience, and who have published guides); gov't officials commissioning DMPs

Activities

· Online and physical resources and tools for the context-sensitive design and implementation of deliberative democracy

· Technical support and mentorship for organizations implementing DMPs and participatory processes and those commissioning them

· Generating briefs that translate existing evidence into practical how-to guidance on specific challenges (e.g., designing recruitment for improved participation rates from under-represented groups)

· Regularly updating and improving these, based on the evidence base and feedback

ADVOCACY

Partners: Summit for Democracy, United Nations, OECD, USAID, European Union

· Using evidence to make measured claims about the promise and pitfalls of DMPs in different contexts in international, multilateral forums on democracy

· Deliberative Democracy Schools and Fellowship Programs

o Educate electeds, public participation organizations, and others what DMPs are, how they work, why they can help, and how they can be adapted to fit their problems, goals, and context

o Graduates of the program become designers, implementers, commissioners, and advocates of deliberative processes in their communities

o This is more applicable in places where deliberative democracy is not widely known, but where it may be applicable and there is legitimate local interest

· Holding public conversations to make visible the progress and benefits of deliberative democracy across the world (based on evidence).

· Raise peoples’ awareness and familiarity with the terms “citizens’ assembly/jury’’, “deliberative process”, “selection by lot/random selection”, “sortition”.

· Showcase and disseminate best practice examples from the evidence collected.

· Pinpoint opportunities for high-impact, high-level citizens assemblies across the world as helpful solutions related to current events, crises, deadlocks (supported by evidence)

· Advocate for broader structural changes needed for proliferation and successful implementation of one-off and institutionalised deliberative processes globally (legal, cultural, financial - based on evidence)

OVERSIGHT

Name: Global Commission for Deliberative Mini-Public Integrity and Legitimacy?

· Development of standards for DMPs based upon evidence of what works

· Ensuring that DMPs, particularly high-profile DMPs, meet rigorous standards to ensure legitimacy and integrity, like election commissions do

· Coordinating a program of independent international observers for citizens’ assemblies (like we have in elections)

· Providing an evaluation framework and support on how to use it

· Collecting and analysing evaluation results to draw learnings, trends, and opportunities for improvement globally.

GOVERNANCE OF THE WWC

· Who: A global committee of academics and practitioners with an explicit focus on having a diverse group with representatives from all global regions.

o OECD

o USAID’s DRG Center

· Activities: Oversight and governance of the WWC itself. Answers questions such as

o Are we doing this work well?

o Are we doing the right things?

o Are we doing this work ethically?

First Actions–Year One

Evidence

· Define the “What” of What Works

o Establish a common conceptual framework for describing and comparing deliberative mini-publics and relevant contextual variables

· Define the “Works” of What Works

o Establish evaluative criteria for assessing what makes a deliberative mini public good or useful in a given context

· Develop various levels of evidentiary standards, and procedures to calibrate the advice, advocacy, and oversight functions accordingly

· Do all of this with help from the oversight committee, as evidence is political and normative, and the way we do these things may have consequences that we need to be aware of and transparent about

Advice

· Establish partnerships (newDemocracy, Mosaic Lab, MASS LBP, FIDE, DemocracyNext, People Powered; Democracy R&D, Center for European Citizens’ Democracy) to develop our advice functions, working toward technical support / mentorship and a physical / online handbook

Advocacy

· Conduct and evaluate two deliberative democracy schools, on in Arizona (April ‘24) and one in New York (August ‘23)

o Building on the lessons and outcomes from the first school offered by the Hannah Arendt Center, Bard College, New York in summer of 2022, we are working to pilot a second school adapting to the needs and opportunities in different parts of the United States, beginning with Arizona. We believe that lessons and outcomes from organizing these two schools will generate critical knowledge and experience to undertake similar initiatives in other parts of the world adapted to local contexts as opportunities and need arise and resources become available.

· Establishment of ethical advocacy activities and standards

Oversight

· Develop and operationalize evidence-based standards, and procedures for how they will be updated and adapted to different contexts

Governance

· Establishment of an international governance committee

Asks from the Summit for Democracy

We, the cohort volunteers, are encouraged by the interest and support from the Summit team for our efforts to create a WWCDDCA. The purpose of the asks is to collect feedback and further encouragement to proceed in an organized, systematic, and pragmatic manner along these or other mutually agreed lines of possibilities and priorities.

· Commission a year-long study with the results to be shared in the next 2024 Summit for Democracy to:

· Evidence: Conduct a landscape analysis of deliberative democracy methods, practices and resources around the globe;

· Advice and Evidence: Conduct a pilot evaluation of the process and outcomes of the Global Citizen Assembly and Marshall Plan for deliberative democracy undertaken by the DDCA partner cohorts;

· Advocacy: Conduct two or more Deliberative Democracy Schools, one in Arizona (led by ASU) and one in New York (led by Bard) where cohort members are located, evaluating the outcomes and demand for this work

· Conduct a feasibility study and develop an action and funding plan for a global what works center on deliberative democracy based on the landscape analysis and evaluation.

· A follow-up seminar with Global participation of parliamentarians to exchange and develop models for further citizens’ participation in decision making, and a particular focus on deliberative exchange

References

· OECD (2020), Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/339306da-en.

· Knobloch, K. R., Barthel, M., & Gastil, J. (2019). Emanating effects: The impact of the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review on voters’ political efficacy. Political Studies, 68, 426-445.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719852254

· Felicetti, A., Niemeyer, S., & Curato, N. (2016). Improving deliberative participation: Connecting mini-publics to deliberative systems. European Political Science Review, 8(3), 427–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773915000119

· Allan, S. (2023, January 11). Climate Assembly Members think and act differently on climate, two years on. involve.org.uk. Retrieved March 27, 2023, from https://involve.org.uk/resources/blog/project-updates/climate-assembly-members-think-and-act-differently-climate-two-years

· Collier, P. G., (2019, March 15). France’s Great Debate. OpenDemocracy. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/frances-great-debate-how-it-worked/

· (Landemore, 2022). Can AI bring deliberative democracy to the masses? Retrieved 4 April 2023 from https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/Helen%20Landemore%20Can%20AI%20bring%20deliberative%20democracy%20to%20the%20masses.pdf

The “What works ”Center on Deliberative Democracy Working Group

This is led for the Cohort by Mahmud Farooque [Co-lead Arizona State University Consortium for Science, Policy, Outcomes.]

Members of the group include Bent Noerby Bonde General Secretary European Peoples Forum [Denmark]; Claudia Chwalisz Director Democracy Next [France]; Elisenda Balleste Buxo, Coordinator Global Democracy Coalition [Sweden]; Graham Allen, Convenor Citizens’ Convention on UK Democracy[UK]; Iain Walker Exec Director newDemocracy[Australia] Ieva Cesnulaityte Head of Research Democracynext[Lithuania] Miriam Levin Policy Director, Engage Britain [UK],Paul Natorp, Founder Citizen Change ,[Denmark] Rahmin Sarabi,Director, Co-Founder, Democracy Together [USA],Lauren Higgins, Co-Founder, Democracy Together[USA]. Thomas. F. Asher OMB [USA], Eva Rovers [Netherlands].