In a democracy, most of us have a notional say in how our country is run. But democracy is not simple, and ours certainly has its flaws. Many people think it has not been functioning properly for some years, though they may disagree about what needs doing. So the idea that an incoming Labour government might try to make it work better has attractions. But what exactly is wrong now?
What’s the problem?
Apart from Peers and prisoners, everyone over 18 has the right to vote. But since most of us take very little interest in politics, we restrict our participation to occasional elections, when we choose representatives – MPs or councillors – to act on our behalf, and we leave them to get on with it until the next election. But there are two major problems with this: most votes don’t count and vocal campaigners can override the public interest.
Under ‘first past the post‘ elections, most of us live in safe seats where the elected representatives nearly always come from the same party at each election, so our individual vote is unlikely to make any difference. If you put together a general lack of interest and knowledge of politics, the absence of political education in schools, and the existence of safe seats, it is not surprising that more than one in five never votes, and over 7 million people are not even on the electoral roll.
The exception to this happens when a particular issue rises to prominence, often promoted by one party, or by the media. In 2017 Theresa May produced much-needed plans to reform social care for older people. The opposition, looking for electoral gain, and supported by a press campaign, labelled it a ‘death tax’. The resulting public reaction prevented any serious debate, and the real and urgent issues affecting millions of old people went, again, on the back burner. A similar issue arises with planning proposals at local level. Despite a serious national shortage of houses, plans for development usually meet local resistance. For local councillors and MPs, the real votes of current residents will always trump the housing needs of people who do not yet live there. So another problem remains unresolved.
So, we have a double problem: on one hand many people are so disaffected that they do not bother to participate, and on the other, when an issue is important to people, those who stand to lose always win against those in need.
What is a citizens’ assembly?
One strategy to overcome these problems is the citizens’ assembly, or jury, which has been used – formally and informally – in several countries to tackle particularly difficult policy issues. It has been reported that Labour is considering this as part of their plan for government.
The principle is simple. When faced with a politically difficult issue, bring together a representative group of people, and ask them to work together to come up with an answer to the key question. Give them time, space, and a professional facilitator, and provide them with expert evidence, and perhaps evidence from people with opposing proposals.
Some assemblies meet regularly over months or even years, to consider multiple issues, while others meet once or twice, for example over a couple of weekends. The resulting proposals can then be put to government, for debate or implementation, or in some cases to a referendum.
Participants are chosen to represent the general population, balancing factors like sex, age, location etc. Because they are not chosen to represent political parties, and they will not benefit personally from the result (though they may be paid for their time and necessary expanses) members are not tied to political or personal positions. Members can, and do, change their minds in the course of discussion.
Tackling the ‘wicked’ issues
‘Wicked issues’ are ones so difficult that they never get resolved. In the UK, there are a lot of them. Some have waited for decades, because political parties make political capital out of opposing each other, and politicians are intimidated by special interest lobby groups. Although some of these have major implications for large numbers of people, they remain unresolved. They include:
- social care
- House of Lords reform
- planning law
- assisted dying
- immigration
- devolution
A citizen’s assembly (or perhaps several) could help to resolve these, not by making the decision, but by giving politicians a clear, and nuanced, picture of what the general public thinks, when given the time and evidence to consider the issues. It would still be open to Parliament to reject or amend the recommendations, but they would carry more weight than the proposals of lobby groups, or findings of opinion polls, which collect the views of people who are mostly not well-informed, and often not very interested in the issue. The chances of public support for change would also increase if people knew that plans had been carefully considered by ordinary people without any personal interest.
Citizens’ assemblies elsewhere
There is no formal structure in the UK for creating and using citizens’ juries in this way. However, there is a good deal of experience in other countries. Some of these are conducted in private, with relatively simple questions. Others are much more open, with invitations to the public to make submissions. In the case of Ireland, sessions were livestreamed, so the public could watch.
Ireland indeed offers a striking example. Here, a representative assembly of 100 people was created, and asked to consider four controversial topics – abortion law, ageing population, climate change, and the use of referendums. They turned first to abortion, which was unlawful under the constitution. They invited public submissions and held five meetings over five months. At the end, they voted on twelve policy options. Their recommendations went to the Oireachtas (Parliament) which amended the constitution to legalise abortion in specific circumstances, though rather more restricted than the assembly proposals.
In the UK there have been half a dozen experiments, but without any direct linkage to formal politics, and thus with limited impact. One example is Assembly North, created in 2015 to consider devolution to South Yorkshire. The process itself was judged a success, but, because it was operating outside the framework of formal politics, its recommendations led to no action.
Trust will be critical
Trust in politics is at an all time low. Citizens’ assemblies could help overcome this, but only if people have confidence in the selection of participants. In other countries market research companies have been used to do this, because of their expertise in creating representative samples of the population. The process must be at arm’s length from political parties, and avoid recruiting only the politically committed.
It would also be important to ensure that there are clear lines of communication with mainstream politics. Unless the findings are taken seriously by parliament and local councils, the process will rapidly lose public trust. If, as is rumoured, Labour is considering formalising the use of assemblies, building this link will be essential.
There is no doubt that our constitution is creaking and needs reform. Citizens’ assemblies will not solve everything, but they might make a significant improvement. We look forward to learning more about Labour’s idea.
More information on citizens’ assemblies can be found here.
