Over the summer Gordon Brown hailed a ‘new politics’ aimed at re-engaging voters with the political system. He quickly initiated a series of citizens’ juries to explore policy problems ranging from gun crime to hospital cleanliness. But do such initiatives really amount to a ‘new politics’, handing genuine power to ordinary citizens?
Citizens’ juries, originally piloted in the US and Germany in the 1970s and 80s, are bodies of between 10 and 20 people, randomly selected, who sit and deliberate over policy questions and then vote between options for change. Since Labour’s election in 1997 they have been used a number of times in the UK, most notably by the Department of Health.
They have a number of appealing attributes from a democratic point of view. So, for example, they introduce an important element of considered deliberation into public consultation – citizens engage with an issue over time, considering a range of views and evidence, rather than the more immediate and potentially knee-jerk responses that are given to opinion pollsters. Juries also have a potent public legitimacy by virtue of the fact that they are made up of people with no particular axe to grind, providing an important corrective to politics by pressure group. Finally, they can bring everyday understanding and experience to decision making, a valuable alternative to government by expert.
However, the government needs to avoid giving the impression that citizens’ juries are an example of ‘giving away power’ – in reality they are consultative bodies, not decision making ones. Moreover, they have limited power to ‘set the agenda’ given that the questions they address are designed in advance by the body which has commissioned them.
The government should rather frame citizens’ juries as being part of a wider strategy for renewing our democracy, which involves giving away real power as part of the current process of constitutional reform. So, for example, how about giving ordinary citizens the power to initiate citizens’ juries into the questions they are concerned about?
Or how about selecting a wider group of citizens to form a citizens’ assembly to deliberate over questions of long-term importance to the country? A citizens’ assembly is a larger body of 100 to 200 citizens, randomly selected, who sit over a more prolonged period (usually six months to a year) to deliberate over major public policy questions. In the Canadian case, provincial governments in Ontario and British Colombia have used citizens’ assemblies to produce independent proposals for electoral reform, which have then been submitted to referenda of the public at large. This method gives citizens themselves the decision over the choice of electoral system and takes it out of the hands of the people who have the most vested interest in that choice, the political parties.
There is no reason why a similar process could not be undertaken to explore reforming the electoral system in this country, bringing with it the benefits of considered deliberation, complemented by the legitimacy of a wider referendum at the end. This would represent a radical political move to give citizens control of the constitutional agenda.
In the meantime the government needs to ensure that where citizens’ juries are used they have a real impact on policymaking. In particular it needs to better publicise the results of jury deliberations, let people know whether or not the recommendations have been taken forward and, if not, explain why. The jurors themselves must be given some role after the event to monitor how effective the process has been.
Citizens’ juries are a welcome effort to bring ordinary citizens into national decision making, but they should form just one part of a wider strategy of democratic renewal.