Institutionalizing Participation through Citizens’ Assemblies

  • Jonathan Rose
Chapter

Abstract

The question of why citizens ought to participate in politics is one that is as old as the study of politics itself. As far back as Aristotle, participation was seen as a vital part of the res publica, as a way for citizens to take part in activities that were important for the collective good. The ancient Greeks understood the importance of forms of participation such as the council of five hundred — a randomly selected deliberative body chosen for a fixed period of time and charged with oversight of the assembly. For them, robust participation was not seen exclusively through voting but also through direct involvement in democratic life. The seed of this idea has spread throughout the ages and germinated in Italian city-states, medieval Italian communes, kibbutz, and communes.

Keywords

Learning Phase Electoral System Public Consultation Public Deliberation Electoral District 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, B. (2004) ‘Public Meetings and the Democratic Process’, Public Administration Review, 64(1), 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnstein, S. (1969) ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’, Journal of American Institute of Planners, 35, 216–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barber, B. (1984) Strong Democracy: Participatory Democracy for a New Age (Berkeley, CA and Los Angeles: University of California Press).Google Scholar
  4. Berelson, B. R., P. F. Lazarsfeld, and W. N. McPhee (1954) Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
  5. Bowler, S. and D. Farrell (2006) ‘We Know Which One We Prefer but We Don’t Really Know Why: The Curious Case of Mixed Member Electoral Systems’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 8(3), 445–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowler, S., D. Farrell, and R. Pettitt (2005) ‘Expert Opinion on Electoral Systems: So Which Electoral System Is “Best”?’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 15(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowler, S. and B. Grofman (2000) Elections in Australia, Ireland, and Malta under the Single Transferable Vote: Reflections on an Embedded Institution (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press).Google Scholar
  8. British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform (2004) Making Every Vote Count: The Case for Electoral Reform in British Columbia, http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/resources/TechReport(full).pdf Google Scholar
  9. Button, M. and K. Mattso (1999) ‘Deliberative Democracy in Practice: Challenges and Prospects for Civic Deliberation’, Polity, 31(4), 609–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Catt, H. and M. Murphy (2003) ‘What Voice for the People? Categorising Methods of Public Consultation’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 38(3), 407–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Centre for Teaching and Learning (2007) ‘Good Practice: Problem-Based Learning’ Queen’s University, http://www.queensu.ca/ctl/goodpractice/problem/index.html
  12. Chambers, S. (2003) ‘Deliberative Democratic Theory’, Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 307–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coelho, V. S., B. Pozzoni, and M. C. Montoya (2005) ‘Participation and Public Policies in Brazil’ in J. Gastil and P. Levine (eds) The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the 21st Century (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass), pp. 174–85.Google Scholar
  14. Converse, P. E. (1990) ‘Popular Representation and the Distribution of Information’ in J. A. Ferejohn and J. H. Kuklinski (eds) Information and Democratic Processes (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press), pp. 369–87.Google Scholar
  15. Dahl, R. A. (1970) After the Revolution: Authority in a Good Society (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
  16. Dahl, R. A. (1989) Democracy and Its Critics (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
  17. Farr, J. (1993) ‘Framing Democratic Discussion’ in G. E. Marcus and R. Hanson (eds) Reconsidering the Democratic Public (University Park, PA: Penn State Press).Google Scholar
  18. Farrell, D. (2001) Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction (New York: Palgrave — now Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar
  19. Fishkin, J. S. (1991) Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
  20. Gastil, J. and L. W. Black (2008) ‘Public Deliberation as the Organizing Principle of Political Communication Research’, Journal of Public Deliberation, 4(1), 1–47.Google Scholar
  21. Gutmann, A. and D. Thompson (2004) Why Deliberative Democracy? (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  22. Hannigan, L. (2007) ‘The Effectiveness of Public Consultation: A Case Study of the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform.’ Unpublished BA honours thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
  23. Institute on Governance (2007) Citizen Deliberative Decision-Making: Evaluation of the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform (Ottawa: Institute on Governance).Google Scholar
  24. Irvin, R. and J. Stansbury (2004) ‘Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort’, Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Karpowitz, C. and J. Mansbridge (2005) ‘Disagreement and Consensus: The Importance of Dynamic Updating in Public Deliberation’ in J. Gastil and P. Levine (eds) The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the 21st Century (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).Google Scholar
  26. Katz, R. S. (1997) Democracy and Elections (New York: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lippmann, W. (1925) The Phantom Public (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich).Google Scholar
  28. Luskin, R. (1987) ‘Measuring Political Sophistication’, American Journal of Political Science, 31(4), 856–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mansbridge, J. J. (1980) Beyond Adversary Democracy (New York: Basic Books).Google Scholar
  30. Neuman, W. R. (1986) The Paradox of Mass Politics: Knowledge and Opinion in the American Electorate (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
  31. Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform (2007) Public Consultation Reports, http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/assets/Citizens%20Assembly%20Consultation%20Reports.pdf Google Scholar
  32. Schumpeter, J. (1942) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (New York: Harper).Google Scholar
  33. Snider, J. H. (2007) ‘From Dahl to O’Leary: 36 Years of the “Yale School of Democratic Reform”’, Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
  34. Surowiecki, J. (2004) Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many are Smarter than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations (New York: Random House).Google Scholar
  35. Thompson, D. (2008) ‘Who Should Govern Who Governs: The Role of Citizens in Reforming the Electoral System’ in M. Warren and H. Pearce (eds) Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 20–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Warren, M. and H. Pearce (eds) (2008) Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  37. Yankelovich, D. (1991) Coming to Public Judgement: Making Democracy Work in a Complex World (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press).Google Scholar
  38. Zaller, J. R. (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (New York: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Jonathan Rose 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Rose

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations