Looking in from the Outside: How Do Invited But Not Selected Citizens Perceive the Legitimacy of a Minipublic?

Author:

Devillers Sophie1,Vrydagh Julien2,Caluwaerts Didier2,Reuchamps Min3

Affiliation:

1. UNamur

2. VUB

3. UCLouvain

Abstract

Deliberative minipublics are often critiqued for being disconnected with mass democracy. This is problematic from the perspective of legitimacy. If ordinary citizens are not aware of the existence of minipublics, how can citizens consent to the process and outcomes of these processes? One possible design innovation is to widen the pool of citizens randomly invited to take part in minipublics. While not all invited individuals will be selected to join minipublics, inviting a large pool of people, at the very least, may trigger their curiosity to closely observe and scrutinise the debates and recommendations of their fellow citizens. Our article examines the viability of this design feature using the case study of the citizen panel ‘Make Your Brussels – Mobility’. We focus on a group of 336 people who accepted the invitation to participate in the citizen panel but were not among the 40 people selected to participate. We have two major findings. First, despite their initial interest in taking part in a minipublic, these citizens did not follow up on their interest in the minipublic. Second, these citizens do not perceive citizen panels as capable of delivering consensual outcomes. We conclude the article by drawing out implications for deliberative practice, especially in enhancing the legitimacy of minipublics.

Publisher

University of Westminster Press

Subject

General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Environmental Science

Reference39 articles.

1. The G1000: Facts, figures and some lessons from an experience of deliberative democracy in Belgium;Caluwaerts, D.Reuchamps, M.,2012

2. Does inter-group deliberation foster inter-group appreciation? Evidence from two experiments in Belgium;Caluwaerts, D.Reuchamps, M.;Politics,2014

3. Strengthening democracy through bottom-up deliberation: An assessment of the internal legitimacy of the G1000 project;Caluwaerts, D.Reuchamps, M.;Acta Politica,2015

4. Generating democratic legitimacy through deliberative innovations: The role of embeddedness and disruptiveness;Caluwaerts, D.Reuchamps, M.;Representation,2016

Cited by 6 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3