In Search of Better Politcs. Linking Mini-publics and the Deliberative System

Introduction A citizen jury does not a deliberative democracy make. One may run the best mini-public where reasons are exchanged in an inclusive, respectful and public-spirited manner, but this has little bearing in a political system shaped by polarising rhetoric, spin doctoring and profit-oriented media. Deliberative democracy, as Simone Chambers (2009) rightly points out, is a project that involves ‘mass democracy. ’ More needs to be done to ensure that the public sphere and formal sites of power realise the virtues of deliberative politics, instead of fixating with the internal design of deliberative forums. This, however, is not to say that a broad view of deliberative democracy should give up on the study of mini-publics. While the systemic turn has shifted the attention away from mini-publics to various spaces in which discourses can be contested, it also brings forth a re-evaluation of the normative theory underpinning mini-publics. What are the functions of mini-publics in a deliberative system? What is the relationship between macro and micro deliberation? Put another way, how can a citizen jury or deliberative forums in general contribute to a deliberative democracy? We aim to provide analytical clarity on these matters by theorising the relationship between macro and micro-deliberation in the context of a deliberative system. We put forward one main conjecture. We argue that though macro and micro deliberation are conceptually distinct, they are inherently connected. The connection, however, is more tenuous than originally proposed by some deliberative democrats. We argue that mini-publics are best appreciated as sites that ‘filter’ discussions in the public sphere, rather than sites of decision-making. The macro-political impact of mini-publics should be on the level of shaping the course of public will-formation (discursive) rather than making decisions on behalf of the public (decision-making). The challenge, therefore, is imagining ways in which mini-publics establish links with the public space and play a discursive function, instead of being formal sites of political decision-making. This is a crucial theoretical position to take if one were to address legitimacy and practicality issues that cast doubt on the democratic character of micro-deliberative forums. We provide empirical context to our theoretical claims by focusing on two case studies of mini-publics conducted in Bologna (Italy) and Sydney (Australia). We show that despite from a micro-standpoint both deliberation processes are characterized by complexities, the Australian forum had greater impact. This, we argue, is due to the latter minipublic’s ability to play a discursive role in the system. The forum worked as a filter and the result of deliberation provided an effective feed back into the wider deliberative system. In contrast, due to its design, as well as implementation, and administrative oversight the Italian mini-public came closer to play a decision-making role. That role limited the ability of the forum to enhance the deliberativeness of the system. In particular, the experiment was unable to conveying to the outside the key insight from deliberation, whilst the legitimacy of the forum was questioned by a number of actors and. We argue the impact of mini-publics is determined more by the way deliberative experiments interact with surrounding actors than by the quality of deliberation during the process.