Mini-publics, opportunities and challenges. The cases of Belgium
and Ireland
Minipúblicos, oportunidades y desafíos. Los casos de Bélgica e Irlanda
doxa.comunicación |
nº 37
|
July-December of 2023
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
How to cite this article:
Romero Algora, A. (2023). Mini-publics, opportunities and challenges. e cases of Belgium and Ireland.
Doxa Comunicación
, 37.
https://doi.org/10.31921/doxacom.n37a1768
Álvaro Romero Algora.
PhD in Contemporary History from the Universidad de Sevilla. His doctoral thesis considered
the processes of democratic renewal in contemporary western societies, the role of social movements and the inuence
of public institutions. A History graduate from the Universidad de Sevilla, he has a Master’s in Advanced Historical
Studies from the Universidad de Sevilla and in Democratic Leadership and Political Communication from the
Complutense University of Madrid.
University of Sevilla, Spain
[email protected]
ORCID: 0000-0003-2761-1031
Abstract:
In recent years, both public institutions and sectors of civil society
have used so-called “mini-publics” to combat citizens’ growing
apathy towards politics. is paper analyses and explores the
opportunities and challenges presented by this way of understanding
citizen participation, in which ICT has played a major role. Two
specic experiences have been compared: the G1000 in Belgium
and the Citizens’ Assemblies in Ireland. Even though the political
implementation of the consensual conclusions after the deliberative
process ultimately depends on a specic commitment on the part of
public institutions, these experiments are helping to introduce new
ways of conceiving democratic legitimacy in political discourse.
Keywords:
Democracy; deliberation; political participation; democratic reform.
Resumen:
En los últimos años, tanto las instituciones públicas como los sectores de
la sociedad civil han utilizado los llamados “minipúblicos” para com
-
batir la creciente apatía de los ciudadanos hacia la política. El presente
artículo analiza y explora las oportunidades y desafíos que ofrece esta
forma de entender la participación ciudadana, en los cuales las TICs
han jugado un papel relevante. Para ello se comparan dos experiencias
concretas: el G1000 en Bélgica y las Asambleas Ciudadanas en Irlanda.
Pese a que la implementación política de las decisiones consensuadas
tras el proceso deliberativo obedece, en última instancia, a un compro
-
miso concreto por parte de las instituciones públicas; estos experimentos
están ayudando a insertar nuevas formas de concebir la legitimidad de
-
mocrática en el lenguaje político.
Palabras clave:
Democracia; deliberación; participación política; reforma democrática.
Received: 06/09/2022 - Accepted: 28/01/2023 - Early access: 13/03/2023 - Published:
Recibido: 06/09/2022 - Aceptado: 28/01/2023 - En edición: 13/03/2023 - Publicado:
is content is published under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License. International License
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
| nº 37 |
doxa.comunicación
July-December of 2023
Mini-publics, opportunities and challenges. The cases of Belgium and Ireland
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
1. Introduction
Several theoretical currents have emerged since the seventies arguing for greater participation by citizens in public aairs
(Macpherson, 1982). Within this academic debate, the theory of deliberative democracy came to be seen in the nineties as
one of the better options for reducing distances between public institutions and civil society. It is not a question of a school
of thought which aspires to eliminate the principles of the representative system nor is it synonymous with direct democracy,
rather it defends the position that the legitimacy of democratic decisions should not be based on the simple aggregation of
citizens’ individual preferences, but through a civil society committed to “informed debate, the public use of reason and the
impartial search for the truth” (Held, 2007, p. 333). Being such a heterogeneous school of thought, it is no easy task to present
a unied position, particularly as regards its institutional design (Bächtiger, Andre et al., 2018). But there can be no doubt that
all see deliberation as having a central place in the democratic process.
Deliberative democracy has been accused of creating insurmountable tension between theory and practice due to the
complexity of its proposals or its high degree of abstraction. Despite such criticism, empirical studies have been growing
in number in many and varied contexts and with dierent objectives, often limited to local aairs, such as the democratic
decentralisation in Kerala (Heller & omas Isaac, 2003) or participative budgets (Romero Algora, 2021). In recent decades
the formula of “deliberative mini-publics” (hereinafter DMP) has been increasingly common as a means to reconnect civil
society with politics. Of particular note is its use in consultation regarding constitutional reform (Suiter & Reuchamps,
2016), largely thanks to the opportunities oered by new technologies, leading to some being studied as examples of cyber
democracy (Tejedor & Paget, 2016).
Taking Smith & Setälä’s denition (2018), we are dealing with “a space, within which a diverse body of citizens who would
not otherwise interact is randomly selected to reason together about a matter of public interest” (p. 300). It is deliberative
in that the participants are committed to reaching consensus on conclusions following an open and informed debate on a
specic question. Moreover, being made up of a limited but representative percentage of the population selected through a
draw as opposed to a vote to choose representatives, it is hoped that inclusion and equity can be achieved. e use of a draw
is due to the supposition that each individual is suciently able to decide on important questions with adequate information
available. erefore, it can be assumed that, under adequate conditions, the result of the assembly’s deliberations will reect
the voice of all citizens, had they had the chance to participate in the process (Fishkin, 2009).
Many defend this mechanism, whether it be to utilise it as a consultative organ or to introduce it as an institution with
a capacity for political decision, even assuming some of the competences of a legislative assembly (Sintomer, 2017; Van
Reybrouck, 2017). Various models have been drawn up over the years, depending on the context and objectives: citizen
juries, planning cells, consensus conferences, deliberative polls… being dierentiated by the number of members and by the
objectives pursued, however, all of them focus their attention on draws and deliberation (Setälä, 2021).
doxa.comunicación |
nº 37
|
July-December of 2023
Álvaro Romero Algora
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
e early years of the XXI century saw the beginning of highly ambitious deliberative processes, such as the Citizens’
Assemblies in British Columbia and Ontario (Canada) in 2004 and 2006, respectively, and since then these assemblies have
experienced considerable growth: such as the civic forum on electoral reform in the Low Countries in 2006, the Constituent
Assembly in Iceland from 2010-2012, the French Citizens’ Convention on the Climate in 2019, etc (OECD, 2020).
In parallel to such processes, new technologies have opened up new possibilities for participation in the
res publica
. e
utilisation of terms such as
e-Democracy
or
e-Participation
is increasingly common in referring to the use of information
and communication technology (ICT) when creating horizontal spaces in which citizens can nd alternative channels for
collective reection. Digital technology allows greater access to resources which were dicult to obtain in the past, along with
greater connectivity between people, who otherwise could never have been in contact with each other. It represents a chance
to expand the horizons of how we understand our role as citizens and to move beyond traditional political participation as
represented by the ballot box.
e Network’s potential has not gone unnoticed by the advocates of a deliberative model of democracy, and, whilst it is true
that there is great diversity of positions among them, in general there are reasons for taking a positive view of such potential
(Chambers & Gastil, 2021). Particularly regarding DMP, ICT represents a reduction in the restrictions on participation, such
as time or access to information. Moreover, they also permit a broadening of the eld of action for social movements, as the
population “identies and makes their objectives known, requests and encourages support, organises and communicates
information and instructions, recruits, and raises funds” (Sampedro, Sánchez & Poletti, 2013, p. 108); all of which contributes
to an “empowerment process for citizens based on the inherent and extended complexity of social cooperation, by redening
the forms of wealth generation focused on immaterial work” (Sierra, 2021, p. 342). ey therefore gain greater autonomy
relative to traditional political parties and the media.
Despite the advantages mentioned above, when speaking of the relationship between democracy and ICT, it is important
to bear in mind one prior consideration: new technologies are an instrument, not an end in themselves. e results of their
application to the democratic process will depend, ultimately, on the part played by the actors involved in the network and
their technological possibilities. Questions regarding forms of participation, the political agenda, objectives set out, the
actors’ values or the procedure applied will determine how digital democracy takes shape. ese models may help to solve
some of the traditional challenges faced by the democratic system, but may give rise to others. us, it is wise to be prudent
in their use and critical of their fruits (Candón-Mena, 2018).
Neither are DMP free from criticism. Some see this model as a form of deliberative elitism (Pourtois, 2013). Lafont (2015)
maintains that DMP could have an eect contrary to that desired: to reduce the democratic legitimacy of the deliberation. If
legitimacy depends on the process within an assembly chosen by a draw, the risk is being run of creating a non-democratic
scenario, in which civil society would depend on that agreed by a minority, denying the public sphere its chance to
experience a truly participative process. In addition to this criticism, Böker (2017) `points out that many models of mini-
publics, such as juries and deliberative fora, are often instruments overseen by the administration, and therefore eliminate
the emancipatory opportunities for citizens. Such observations warn us of the importance of the who, how and why in a DMP.
| nº 37 |
doxa.comunicación
July-December of 2023
Mini-publics, opportunities and challenges. The cases of Belgium and Ireland
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
Camarelles (2021), aware that these apparent structural weaknesses may never be completely remedied, oers some minimal
criteria for these processes to be considered legitimately democratic: descriptive representation (the random sample must
statistically represent society), face-to-face deliberation (everyone must have the same opportunities to participate) and
direct participation by the citizens in decision-taking. Nevertheless, the author recognises, as does Böker, that even when
meeting these requisites, interference by the Government of the moment will always be a potential risk for the legitimacy of
the process.
2. Methodology & objectives
To be able to examine whether DMP can become mechanisms of democratic reform, this paper will conduct a comparative
case study with a descriptive and interpretative focus as its principal methodology. is qualitative approach is considered
pertinent as, according to Goodrick (2014) “comparative case studies involve the analysis and synthesis of the similarities,
dierences and patterns across two or more cases that share a common focus or goal” (p. 1), which allows a sensitive
approximation to the diversity of contexts. Applying this methodology, the objective of the paper is to present a critical
approach to DMP initiatives which have taken place in Belgium and Ireland since 2010, to their interest in improving
democratic politics, and to analyse the tools which have allowed the diusion, performance, and impact of these initiatives.
ere are three reasons for such interest in the experiences in these countries:
–
Both arose as a response to various political and economic crises towards the end of the rst decade of the XXI century.
–
e two countries have been pioneers in both the drawing up and the methodology of reform processes as well as in the
use of ICT for their diusion and application.
–
ey represent two dierent ways of understanding the relationship between public deliberation and political institutions,
as while one excludes any interference in the process by the State (Belgium), the other seeks its involvement (Ireland).
e study has gathered qualitative information on these experiences of DMP: ocial documents published by the organisers,
data extracted from the ocial webs of the events, observations and impressions of academics who followed the process clo
-
sely, and several sources which reect the impact and continuity of such initiatives. All this in order to achieve the proposed
objectives.
Having said this, the following pages will compare the origin, development and singularities of two practical cases: the
Belgian G1000 and the Irish Citizens’ Assemblies. Following this, there is a reection on the similarities and dierences
between the two, as well as their limits and opportunities, looking closely at questions such as the relationship between DMP
and public institutions, and the utility of ICT in guaranteeing quality and inclusive deliberation.
doxa.comunicación |
nº 37
|
July-December of 2023
Álvaro Romero Algora
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
3. Results
3.1. Belgium & Ireland, two examples of deliberative mini-publics
Jon Elster (1995) identied up to seven waves of constitutional creation between the XVIII and XX centuries. Each wave
occurred in very dierent contexts and periods, but one can extract from them at least three common elements: 1) almost all
arose as a response to a socio-economic crisis, a revolution or as the product of regime collapse. 2) their creation involved
prior deliberation by political elites. 3) Passion tends to impose itself on reason in turbulent circumstances.
Just as with many of their predecessors, the two cases studied came about due to contemporary crises. In particular, due
to the 2007 nancial crisis and the corresponding political fallout. However, unlike previous waves, the current tendency
places citizens at the heart of the process, with the idea that they should participate, to a greater or lesser degree, in the
drafting of the laws which they will be obliged to obey, if these are to enjoy real legitimacy (Habermas, 1998). e mini-
publics would thus full the function of a deliberative assembly, able to produce politically legitimate results. Although the
Irish Constitutional Convention is an example of a constitutional mini-public, it is not exactly so in the case of Belgium.
Nonetheless, it is included here as, despite the spirit of G1000 not being to reform the Constitution, it did inspire a general
debate into the nature of democracy in Belgium. Furthermore, its inuence has gone beyond its frontiers, which has turned
it into “an experiment in deliberative democracy with potential for political and constitutional transformation” (Suiter &
Reuchamps, 2016, p. 5).
3.1.1. G1000 in Belgium
Caluwaerts & Reuchamps (2014a) describe Belgium as a deeply divided society, its public sphere being so balkanised as
to make public debate all but impossible. It is a country where each linguistic group nds itself in a separate sphere, along
with notable economic and political divisions between the Flanders Region (home to the Flemish community) and Walloon
Region (where the French-speaking community resides).
Political tensions peaked in 2007, when the country went six months without forming a government due to the Francophone
and Flemish parties’ inability to reach agreement on state reforms, which included a redistribution of competences for the
two linguistic communities. Finally, a ve-party government was formed with the promise of new institutional and economic
reforms. However, this fragile alliance lasted little time. e June 13, 2010, Legislative Elections did not produce the desired
results and Belgium again found itself without a government, this time for a year and a half.
It was in this climate of uncertainty that a group of Belgian citizens from dierent social groups (academics, lawyers, activists,
artists, etc.) started a project called “G1000”. Representing the group’s generalised frustration, David Van Reybrouck, a Flemish
writer, and Paul Hermant, a journalist, presented a manifesto on 11 of June, 2011, in which they advocated a democratic
renewal which further developed deliberative values:
| nº 37 |
doxa.comunicación
July-December of 2023
Mini-publics, opportunities and challenges. The cases of Belgium and Ireland
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
e Belgian crisis is not just a crisis for Belgium; it is also a crisis for democracy. e current standstill is by no means simply a
question of tension between linguistic communities (…) If democracy is no longer facilitated by elections, or even hindered by
them, then citizens must help to nd democratic alternatives (…) Deliberative democracy could well be the democracy of the
future. It is a perfect match for the era of user-generated content and Web 2.0. It harnesses the wisdom of the crowd. It is the
Wikipedia of politics. It realises that not all knowledge of the future of a society has to come from the top. e reason for that is
simple: there is no top anymore. ere are dierent branches of knowledge. A society is a network. e masses today may know
more than the elite (Derenne et al., 2011).
e activists’ intention was to create an assembly where ordinary citizens could meet and deliberate on matters of great social
interest. e initiative soon caught the attention of the major Belgian media (Mouton, 2011; Goethals, 2011). e aspiration
was to take deliberative democracy up to the next level, far from academic abstractions, and trusting that united citizens
would together adopt a common-sense viewpoint. Moreover, both the media and the social networks oered a range of
options for diusion. In budgetary terms, G1000 aspired to belong to the citizens, so all costs were covered by crowdfunding.
Any donation of at least 1 euro was accepted, but it was agreed as a limit that no one could provide more than 5% of the
total estimated budget. Apart from that, any company, association, or government was invited to contribute (Jacquet &
Reuchamps, 2018).
us, the old representative system could benet from a deliberative injection from below respecting the principals of
diversity, inclusion, and independence. With this idea, the project was carried out in three phases
1
:
First phase
: Public agenda. at consisted of an open process with the objective of dening the agenda for the citizens’
summit in phase 2. In early July 2011 a large consultation was organised utilising the G1000 web site. Anyone could post up to
ve questions or issues that they wished the summit to consider. is phase showed a great variety of options. e web page
was particularly user-friendly, with a high degree of security and adapted to mobile devices (Tejedor & Paget, 2016, p. 117).
All participants, whether they had presented an idea or not, could also vote on the proposals of others, which permitted the
hierarchisation of the ideas. A total of six thousand people participated in the process. As most proposals appeared on the list
several times, the ideas were later grouped to make a top twenty-ve, by the number of times they appeared and the rating
they received from other participants. ese top 25 issues were again posted online in October 2011, and, with the media’s
collaboration in transmitting the information, all the nation’s citizens were invited to vote for their three favourite subjects
for the G1000 summit. In the end, the chosen three were: social security, the nancial crisis, and immigration. IP addresses
were veried to prevent mass voting by any individual or group.
Second phase
: Civic Summit. e second part of the project consisted of a citizen deliberation process, G1000 itself. As the task
was so complicated, the services of an independent agency, called
GFK Signicant
, were contracted to contact participants,
generating random phone numbers on landlines and mobiles so as to reach 99% of the Belgian population. is random
selection invited a thousand citizens to participate in a deliberative event in Brussels (491 people nally attended)
2
. Not only
2
Finally, 30% abandoned the experiment. e other 70% presented themselves without nancial compensation, except for transport costs.
doxa.comunicación |
nº 37
|
July-December of 2023
Álvaro Romero Algora
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
were calls generated, but follow-up visits were organised (with the participants’ permission) to clarify any doubts and to give
the process a human face. e random selection was carried out in line with a diversity control allowing for sex, language,
region and age. Finally, the 11th of November 2011 was chosen for the participants to sit down at a hundred tables and
prepare to reect, debate and discuss their positions on the three subjects on the agenda. e discussion at each table was
chaired by experienced volunteers who received adequate instructions during the weeks prior to the event. Furthermore,
thirty tables at G1000 were bi-lingual, with a translator assigned to each of them.
e Brussels event was held in parallel with another two projects: called
G-Os
and
G-Homes
.
e
G-Os
were local debate groups all over the country interested in following the Civic Summit via streaming and
discussing the same subjects amongst themselves. Any reections and recommendations arising from these groups after
their deliberative process were communicated electronically to the main assembly, further feeding the debate. A total of 356
individuals participated in the
G-Os
. Social security was the preferred topic of 123 participants; wealth distribution in times
of crisis was debated by 136 participants, and immigration by 244 (Reuchamps, Min et al., 2017, p. 34)
Apart from these person-to-person debates, the organisers sought to extend participation with online discussion.
G-Homes
was organised employing the
synthetron
software system, is was a free online discussion program for citizens who did not
come out of the draw but wished to participate. 718 citizens are known to have taken part from their own computers. As they
registered directly in
synthetron
, little relevant data is known about these participants, except that 70% of them were male and
30% female, moreover, only 15% of the total were under 35 years of age. Every participant in
G-Home
was placed randomly at
a four-person virtual table to deliberate. e particularity of these virtual debates is that, due to their nature, they did not take
place at the same time as the other two platforms, which complicated their following the main assembly. On the other hand,
to enrich the deliberations, one table’s ideas were transmitted virtually to another, in order to circulate the greatest possible
number of ideas (ibidem, p. 35).
ird phase:
Citizens’ Forum. is was an event designed to prepare specic proposals based on the ideas agreed supercially
in the previous phase, rather like a town hall meeting. us, this third phase of G1000, called G32, took the form of a series
of meetings over three weekends in which 32 participants discussed how to draw up a specic report. e 32 citizens were
chosen at random from the group of 491 in the earlier phase, those who agreed to take part in the
G-Os
or
G-Home
were
also considered as potential participants for G32, which required a signicant commitment over the three weekends. is
deliberative design was far more intensive and asked much more of the moderators, as the participants had greater control
of the process itself. In fact, the citizens led the choice of the specic questions, the choice of experts and, especially, which
decisions they passed on to the public debate.
| nº 37 |
doxa.comunicación
July-December of 2023
Mini-publics, opportunities and challenges. The cases of Belgium and Ireland
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
One of the prior conditions which the organisers wanted everyone to be clear about was the need to recognise the legitimacy
of everyone’s point of view (in order to agree with someone’s ideas, it is rst necessary to hold an open conversation with
that individual). ere was no kind of predetermined result, nor preferences for any particular proposal. G1000’s function
was to be that of a mere procedure for people to promote new ideas. Each one of the subjects chosen for deliberation was
presented in an independent round. e rounds started with two experts (one French and one Dutch) in order to familiarize
the listeners with the material in question, providing diagnosis and possible solutions. e conferences having concluded,
there were several phases of interaction which switched from the deliberations between the citizens to moments in the
sessions when the participants conversed in pairs; in others, everyone shared a single space.
e experiment’s results were published in a document of over a hundred pages, in which a series of recommendations were
presented concerning the questions established in the rst phase (G1000, 2012).
3.1.2. The Irish assemblies
When the worldwide economic crisis broke in 2007, the fall in economic output in the Republic of Ireland caused an
unemployment crisis and the end to the Celtic Tiger’s period of growth. At the same time, massive corruption cases began
to appear in the media, bringing to light “a hazardous symbiotic relationship between three actors: the State, bankers, and
construction companies” (Seijas, 2012, p. 414). e most visible political consequence of these issues was the rapid loss of
citizens’ trust in the government and in its ability to take eective decisions. More and more citizens spoke of the need for
more democratic institutional reform where the people had greater room for manoeuvre.
is pressure for renewal coming from civil society made the main political parties add a series of proposals to their electoral
manifestos for future constitutional reform. Finally, following the 2011 General Election, a coalition government was formed
consisting of
Fine Gael
(of a Christian-democrat leaning) and the Labour Party, with a common program, which, among other
points, included the establishment of a Constituent Convention to consider comprehensive constitutional reform which
reviewed the electoral system, a possible reduction of the Presidential mandate, a disposal for same-sex marriage, amending
the clause on women in the home and encouraging greater female participation in public life, eliminating references to
blasphemy from the Constitution, the possible reduction in voting age and other constitutional amendments that might be
recommended by the Convention (Programme for Government 2011-2016, 2011). However, the program established by the
government contained some imprecision concerning the future “Constituent Convention”, such as its composition or how
binding any decisions taken by the assembly would be.
Faced with concern that the new government’s promises would be watered down over time, as had happened so many times
before, a group of researchers linked to the Political Studies Association of Ireland created the We e Citizens initiative. e
initiative would strive to bring together a pilot assembly with the objective of “getting away from debates on the nature of
the reforms that could or should be implemented, to focus on how the reforms could be processed, that is, to demonstrate
the virtue of deliberative approaches” (Farrell, O´Maley & Suiter, 2013, p. 102). To this end, and with the sponsorship of
the Atlantic Philanthropies foundation, seven participative events took place between May and June 2011 in some of the
doxa.comunicación |
nº 37
|
July-December of 2023
Álvaro Romero Algora
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
Republic’s main cities. 120 people attended in Kilkenny, 115 in Cork, 85 in Galway, 110 in Blanchardstown, 118 in Tallaght,
75 in Letterkenny and nally 65 in Athlone. Most attendees registered online before the event. e events’ objective was to
compile information to draw up an agenda of matters for debate in the future pilot assembly.
To ensure the events had the widest possible diusion, adverts were taken out in local media, the organisers gave several radio
interviews and word of mouth was decisive in spreading the news. But the most important communication tool, according
to the organisers, was the web site set up (
www.wethecitizens.ie
). rough the web citizens obtained all the necessary
information about the initiative, how to put their names down for events and how to participate in the online forum to share
their concerns with their fellow citizens. e day the web was launched, Facebook and Twitter accounts were also set up. A
sign of the success was that the tag
#citizens
was a trend that day and the Facebook account was extremely busy throughout
the whole of the process (We e Citizens, 2011, p. 38). “Speak Up for Ireland” was chosen as the initiative’s slogan. Each
session was completely open to the public, with no other purpose than to debate for a few hours what the Ireland of the
future should be like. e citizens used the meetings to show a number of recurring concerns, such as the role of members
of parliament, electoral reform, or budget cuts due to the economic crisis, worries that served as a basis for a pilot citizens’
assembly set for the end of June.
e polling rm
Ipsos MRBI
helped to gather a representative sample of a hundred people, who met for a weekend in Dublin
to deliberate on the principal themes present in the previous events. e fruits of the deliberations from this pilot assembly
were presented in a report which advocated the need for a constitutional assembly to reform the Irish political system (We e
Citizens, 2011). Said report was not intended to be a packet of measures, but as a way of exerting pressure and of presenting
the Irish government with a reasonable methodology for a future Constitutional Convention.
Finally, aware that civil society was not willing to forget their electoral promises, in July, 2012, Parliament (Oireachtas) nally
passed the calling of a Convention on the Constitution, in order for the citizens to present their recommendations on the
following subjects: (1) reduce the presidential term to ve years and bring it into step with local and European elections; (2)
reduce voting age to 17; (3) a review of the electoral system; (4) grant citizens residing outside the State the right to vote in
presidential elections in Irish embassies, or by other means; (5) a disposal for same-sex marriage; (6) modify the clause on
women’s role in the home and encourage their participation in public life; (7) increase women’s participation in politics; (8)
eliminate the oence of blasphemy from the Constitution; and (9) once the previous reports were nalised, consider other
pertinent recommended constitutional reforms (Oireachtas, 2012)
e rst meeting of the Constitutional Convention took place on January 26, 2013. e assembly was composed of 100
members: 66 citizens chosen by draw, 33 parliamentarians and a president to direct the process, respecting representativity
in terms of age and sex. e Convention met over ten weekends, for a day and a half each time. e working dynamic was
based on a protocol of inclusive participation, organising the tables in such a manner that they held at least eight citizens and
two or three politicians. A coordinator guided each group’s activities, helped by an assistant in charge of writing down the
debate. Each subject debated was previously introduced by a group of experts, who strove to ensure that all points of view on
the matter were presented fairly to the members of the Convention (Seijas, 2016).
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
| nº 37 |
doxa.comunicación
July-December of 2023
Mini-publics, opportunities and challenges. The cases of Belgium and Ireland
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
e Convention had to function transparently in all the plenary sessions, therefore they were broadcast live on the website
http://www.constitutionalconvention.ie/
(over one hundred hours streaming the ten meetings). All documentation and
the transcriptions made are freely available there. During the event there were over 350,000 visits to the website from 144
countries, and regional meetings were held at nine sites around the country to listen to what the public had to say about
constitutional change. is shows once again the ecacy of ICT in the selection, performance, and transparency of the
process.
e results of the Convention’s work were set out in nine reports. Eight concerning the subjects proposed by the government
and the last one on two matters introduced by the Convention itself (Constitutional Convention, 2014). Of the 38
recommendations formulated by the Constitutional Convention, 18 called for constitutional changes. e impact of these
recommendations was limited by the right of the politicians to accept them or not, but they were, in any case, obliged to
reply. Among the ideas proposed by the Convention which involved modifying the Constitution, only two ended up in a
referendum: that which would modify Article 41 of the Constitution, relative to the introduction of matrimony between
persons of the same sex; and Article 12, which would establish a reduction in the minimum age to be eligible to be Head of
State, from 35 to 21 years of age. e other subjects were rejected, classied as being low priorities for the Government or sent
back to a Parliamentary commission (Seijas, 2018).
e Convention was a success. Its holding was a demonstration that such assemblies could have a place under contemporary
conditions. Such was its popularity that, after the 2016 elections, the Government committed itself to repeating the formula,
but with some modications, such as renaming the Constitutional Convention as the “Citizens’ Assembly” and this time
without politicians’ participation in the process, and although tasked with only a limited number of subjects, these questions
were not limited to those directly related to the Constitution (Programme for Government, 2016). e inaugural meeting was
on the 15th of October 2016 with a deliberative dynamic with almost the same structure and procedures as the Convention,
although this time the Assembly had 99 members randomly chosen instead of the 66 from the previous occasion. At
Parliament’s suggestion, the Assembly debated matters as important as the aging population, referenda, climate change and
abortion. e new assembly was another success, and it would seem that, far from being an anecdotal episode, the practice
is establishing itself in Irish political life.
4. Discussion
So, how are such events to be evaluated? Are they useful experiments for the empowerment of citizens in the XXI century?
What can contemporary democracies learn from them? Many, though not all, theorists of deliberative democracy give a
positive evaluation to the legitimacy of DMP, a relatively recent phenomenon in western democracies (Camarelles, 2021).
With the examples presented in this paper, hopefully a small contribution has been made to the debate as well as a critical
evaluation of their contribution. e following is a presentation of some points concerning these initiatives that may be
worthy of consideration.
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
doxa.comunicación |
nº 37
|
July-December of 2023
Álvaro Romero Algora
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
Similarities
. DMP seem to support Jon Elster’s statement (1995) that constitutional reform movements tend to appear at
moments of political, economic or social crisis (sometimes all three at once). Both the Belgian and the Irish initiatives
arose from the recognition that the democratic system was defective and that an urgent response was called for. However,
Gargarella (2019, p. 35) suggests that DMP of recent decades refute one of Elster’s thesis, that referring to the fact that at times
of political or economic turbulence, passion overcomes reason. Rather, it can be seen that these situations of indignation
can be channelled towards calm and rational discussion. e response found was to grant citizens the instruments needed
for their voices to be heard. erefore, we are dealing with two phenomena orchestrated by civil society, hand-in-hand with
academics and activists, with the objective of inuencing public policy in their respective countries.
e two cases also represent a useful illustration of how to implement inclusive deliberative processes in complex political
contexts. A draw favours participation and equality of opportunity among the population. e method seeks to increase
democratic legitimacy by introducing a representative part of the population controlled for sex, age, geography, language, etc.
In this sense DMP have helped to give visibility to groups of people whose representation in traditional political institutions is
often questioned. In fact, comparative analysis of these experiences allows us to see that the inclusion of a plurality of citizens
in these spaces makes it possible to study questions normally excluded from public debate by the political authorities (such
as abortion, economic development or electoral reform). From this point of view, a renement of the method of the draw
could enhance fair and democratic representation.
Belgium and Ireland were innovative examples of the utilization of ICT for deliberative assemblies. Digital spaces were
designed as a way to stimulate information reception and encourage participation (both in person and online). e
transparency of the process was guaranteed by the continuous publication of its activities on social networks, posting the
times of the meetings and live broadcasting the sessions. One can perceive their clear intent to build digital communication
networks as the chief means of access to information and the formation of public opinion. e objective was not to transform
society, but rather improve democracy by helping citizens to participate in a rational process of universalist character. at
is why it is typical that DMP are presented as “non-ideological and decline to dene themselves in political terms (García
Guitián, 2016, p. 182), conceiving their activity as management of public aairs rather than a conictive competition for
power. An element which is highly criticised by other authors who see in this discourse a dangerous negation of precisely that
which characterises politics: its inevitable antagonism (Moue, 2011).
Dierences
. Perhaps the rst major dierences we should point out here between G1000 and the Irish assemblies is their
approach to institutions. e Belgian organisers “explicitly sought to avoid any political or institutional ties and focused far
more on guaranteeing the greatest possible representativity and high-quality deliberation, instead of producing a strong
political result” (Jacquet et al., 2016, p. 53). However, the Irish activists sought from the rst to oer useful frameworks
and procedures to demonstrate to their political class that not only was the implementation of deliberative processes in
democratic reforms something desirable, but eective as well. Because of this, as G1000 was not connected to any State
institution, the assembly’s nal recommendations carried practically no weight at all in the short term; this was not the
case with the Constitutional Convention, which, thanks to the media, political and social support it received has managed
| nº 37 |
doxa.comunicación
July-December of 2023
Mini-publics, opportunities and challenges. The cases of Belgium and Ireland
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
to introduce itself into the political institutions, and its decisions, although consultive, took on a binding character through
referenda.
As opposed to excessive optimism about the use of ICT in mechanisms of institutional participation using digital means, DMP
seem to show that the network, by itself, is unable to guarantee the procedural conditions that would permit the building of a
deliberative public sphere. It is true that new technologies have contributed to a more plural discourse in the political arena,
and that their development provides new ways to produce and transmit information. However, in the assembly debates
studied, the use of ICT never substituted the face-to-face meeting when agreeing recommendations among citizens, in fact,
we nd notable strategic dierences between the two experiences concerning their role in the process. In the case of Ireland,
both the We e Citizens initiative and the Constitutional Convention saw new technologies largely full an instrumental
function: publicity, online registering, information about meetings, publication of documents, streaming of debates, and
transparency, among others. Apart from those persons directly involved in the deliberations, the rest of the population had
no space available to participate or propose ideas or concerns to the assembly, placing all the weight of the deliberations on
the shoulders of the participants chosen by draw. e Belgian use of new technologies was very similar to that in Ireland,
in this case again ICT had promotional and communicational functions both before and after the event, however, unlike
Ireland, the deliberative phases of G1000 included the participation of individuals outside the civic summit, the
G-Homes
and
G-Os
. eir members were supporters who had not been selected in the draw, but to whom the organisers decided
to oer an opportunity to collaborate. Apart from participating in their own debates, they had an opportunity to pass their
reections on to the assembly to enrich its dialogue. is made them more than mere receivers of information; they were
also its authors. Moreover, in the project’s third phase, they were potential candidates for the G32, tasked with debating and
drawing up the nal report. Although the denitive decisions were decided at a physical summit, G1000 aspired to include
the greatest possible number of citizens (some 1,565), employing all the technological instruments to hand, making it a
worldwide reference for deliberative cyber democracy (Tejedor & Paget, 2016). ese cases demonstrate that the importance
of ICT in the conguration of participative processes lies not its utilisation, but in its focus.
Impact
. G1000 showed itself to be one of the most attractive and innovative initiatives of recent years. However, the most
relevant aspect for the purposes of this paper is its political impact. As previously mentioned, due to its not being connected
to any State institution, the assembly’s nal recommendations had no short-term weight at all in the process of formulating
public policy. at leaves G1000 as a symbolic initiative, although that does not mean that it did not wield certain inuence.
e experiment has been imitated in other countries, such as Spain (Navarro, 2017) or the Netherlands (Michels & Binnema,
2018). Its prestige in Belgium encouraged several political parties of varying hues to promote participative mechanisms,
whether by means of participative budgets or political procedures that included a draw (Reuchamps et al., 2017). In that
sense, G1000’s greatest success so far may be found in Belgium’s German-speaking Community. In 2019, the East Belgian
parliament (the Ostbelgien in German) decided to set up a permanent Citizen’s Council and a temporary Citizen’s Assembly.
e twenty-four members of the Citizen’s Council, who are changed every eighteen months, have the duty to decide the size,
duration, and means of bringing together a Citizen’s Assembly, chosen by draw, to deal with a specic subject of general
doxa.comunicación |
nº 37
|
July-December of 2023
Álvaro Romero Algora
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
interest. After meeting for a number of weekends, the Assembly presents its recommendations to Parliament, although these
are not legally binding, the Constitution granting all power to Parliament (OIDP, s.f.).
e Citizens’ Assemblies in Ireland, did indeed have greater consequences, gradually becoming something integrated into
national political institutions. ree more have been convoked to date. A new Citizens’ Assembly was called in 2021, asked
to deal with gender equality. at assembly looked at questions such as economic dynamics prejudicial to women, equality
of opportunity for leadership in companies and political organisations, and examined a citizen’s responsibilities in and out
of the home. Following the deliberations, 45 recommendations were drawn up, Parliament not yet having given its opinion
on them (e Citizens´ Assembly, 2021). Two new Citizens’ Assemblies have recently been held: one concerning the loss
of biodiversity and the other a local one for County Dublin. Both held their inaugural meeting in April 2022 (e Citizens´
Assembly, 2022a). In that sense the social networks, such as Twitter (e Citizens´ Assembly, 2022b), are playing an important
role in attracting volunteers and keeping the people informed.
Criticism
. Despite the innovation of these initiatives, none are free of certain diculties that must be considered. In the
Belgian case, a few days were not enough to deal with such complex questions in sucient depth, there were even moments
in which the process was barely comprehensible for the participants. Moreover, the top 25 itself was chosen by aggregative
instruments, voted for online instead of being deliberated, to then be placed in order behind the scenes without any type
of external participation, robbing the process of transparency. As regards the experts, most of them clearly had a leaning
towards the left of the political spectrum, which introduces a tinge of bias into the instruction given to the public on the
subjects (Caluwaerts & Reuchamps, 2014b). Furthermore, any decision agreed in a DMP “should always be submitted to
those who did not participate” (Dryzek, 2001, p. 654). If the nal product is not backed in some form by the rest of the
population, the whole process loses part of its legitimacy. G1000 did not include mechanisms to measure the project’s degree
of popular support once it was completed, something they tried to resolve with opinion polls. e result of said polls reects
that several of the economic recommendations, such as tax cuts or on the exibility of the labour market had wide support;
but those relating to non-discrimination or minimum income had little popular backing (Reuchamps et al., 2017, p. 66).
Nor did the Citizens’ Assemblies in Ireland escape criticism. Courant (2021) highlights four major limitations to be borne in
mind, mostly regarding procedure:
1.
Once the process was institutionalised, politicians took control, which left space for arbitrary decisions and the
instrumentalization of the initiative. It is the political class which decides on questions as fundamental as who, what,
when and how, as well as having the nal word on what to do with the recommendations. Something that goes against
the whole spirit of deliberative democracy.
2. e agenda was established from top to bottom, thus considerably reducing the public’s participation as there is less
room for deciding which matters are to be considered.
| nº 37 |
doxa.comunicación
July-December of 2023
Mini-publics, opportunities and challenges. The cases of Belgium and Ireland
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
3. Most of the decisions taken by the organisers were taken behind closed doors, few citizens participating in the meetings
of the directors. at led to the use of a highly restricted protocol, and rules which were occasionally quite opaque, and
which sometimes created a climate of tension during the deliberations. Moreover, there is little room for debate between
the attendees at the meetings.
4. It is not clear that the assembly’s deliberations have real inuence on the votes of the rest of the population. Despite the
Irish voting in favour of the legalisation of same-sex marriage, they rejected the reduction of the minimum age to become
President. is would suppose the possible refutation of one of the theses about DMP, as it is based on the premise that
a small sample of citizens under certain conditions would reproduce the behaviour of society as a whole. A feature that
would also seem to be reected in the opinion polls conducted after G1000 in Belgium.
Of the four points, the chief criticism lies in the merely consultative character, lacking real power to impose or pressure
the political establishment, who have reserved for themselves the nal say on calling a referendum or not. Carolan (2015)
makes a similar criticism, despite recognising the positive aspects of the Convention, he does not hesitate to point out some
problematic aspects during the process: the lack of transparency of some of the stages and inadequate attention paid to the
risks of bias and manipulation.
5. Conclusions
Despite the promise of these initiatives and their signicant growth in recent decades, they remain isolated experiences,
without real weight in the vast majority of current political systems. DMP have not yet shown themselves to be denitive
instruments for achieving more participative democracies, nor that they can overcome the contradictions and limitations
mentioned herein. As has been demonstrated, the cases of Belgium and Ireland suer a series of problems. e hardest to
solve is that of connecting the processes to the political sphere, at the same time as formally empowering citizens in decision-
taking. It is still a task pending for the advocates of DMP to create the foundations that would harmoniously combine the
quality of deliberation with major political impact, or they are condemned to be mechanisms instrumentalized by the elites,
as Böker said (2017).
Analysis of the impact of ICT seems to point to the need to approach its use from a focus which seeks to balance prudence with
ambition. usly, one avoids falling into excessively optimistic expectations which do not correspond with reality. Introducing
new forms of participation thanks to the internet is not enough to rouse the public’s civic spirit, that will ultimately depend
on the commitment and strategies of its promotors when transmitting and developing a project that excites the population.
Future research could perhaps place greater weight on the interactions mediated by ICT between citizens and institutions,
in order to evaluate their inuence on contemporary democracies more precisely, as suggested by García Guitián (2016).
Although, as that author points out, such a labour presupposes a determined way of conceiving the democratic system, on
which there is no consensus, even amongst deliberative authors.
doxa.comunicación |
nº 37
|
July-December of 2023
Álvaro Romero Algora
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
It is also important to point out that there is no single criterion on DMP for processes of democratic renewal. One of the
lessons to be taken from the cases analysed herein is that each of these initiatives is suited to the political and economic
realities in which they take place and the interests at play. In any case, it is not enough just to add deliberative content to
public policy, but one must seek a systematic methodology able to adapt itself over time as new practices arise and new
settings appear.
Nonetheless, despite the criticism that can be made of these DMP, there is reason to think that deliberative processes are
evolving. e progress of ICT, especially the versatility oered by social networks, supposes a notable push for such initiatives.
In fact, both cases can be seen as “successes” in dierent aspects, given that, directly or indirectly, they are contributing to
putting deliberative processes in institutions, and not only that, but they have also gained legitimacy by better representing
democratic discourse. e East Belgian Citizens’ Council and the successive Irish assemblies indicate there is good reason
for optimism. at is thanks to the work of the activists and organisations of civil society, without whom the implementation
of these mechanisms would not have been possible. Collective articulation shows itself once again to be an essential element
in the development of democracy, which without reinforcement, runs the risk of serious regression. Major steps have been
taken in this regard, but it remains to be seen if deliberative democracy is condemned to disillusion or whether, on the
contrary, it will be transformed into an authentic reform of our political systems.
6. Acknowledgements
Article translated into English by Brian O´Halloran.
7. Bibliographic references
Bächtiger, Andre et al. (ed) (2018).
e Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy
. OUP Oxford.
Böker, Marit (2017). Justication, Critique and Deliberative Legitimacy: e Limits of Mini-Publics.
Contemporary Political
eory
, 16, 19–40.
https://doi.org/10.1057/cpt.2016.11
Camarelles, G. (2021). El sorteo como herramienta de innovación democrática: el potencial de los minipúblicos deliberativos.
Revista Española de Ciencia Política
, 56, 145-169.
https://doi.org/10.21308/recp.56.06
Candón-Mena, J. (2018). La aportación de los movimientos sociales y el uso de las TIC en los debates sobre democracia
radical y deliberativa. En: M.J. Pérez Serrano, G. Alcolea-Díaz, A.I. Nogales Bocio (Ed.).
Poder y medios en las sociedades del
siglo XXI
(pp. 177-195). Egregius.
https://hdl.handle.net/11441/81055
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
| nº 37 |
doxa.comunicación
July-December of 2023
Mini-publics, opportunities and challenges. The cases of Belgium and Ireland
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
Candón-Mena, José y Montero-Sánchez, David (2021). From Cyber-Activism to Technopolitics: A Critical Take on Historical
Periods and Orientations in the Use of Digital Technology by Social Movements.
International Journal of Communication
, 15,
2921-2941.
https://hdl.handle.net/11441/114962
Caluwaerts, D., y Reuchamps, M. (2014a). Deliberative stress in linguistically divided Belgium. En: Ugarriza, J. y Caluwaerts,
D. (Eds.).
Democratic Deliberation in Deeply Divided Societies. From Conict to Common Ground
(pp. 35-52). Palgrave
Macmillan.
Caluwaerts, D., y Reuchamps, M. (2014b). Strengthening democracy through bottom-up deliberation: An assessment of the
internal legitimacy of the G1000 project.
Acta Politica
, 50 (2), 1-20.
https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2014.2
Carolan, Eoin (2015). Ireland’s Constitutional Convention: Behind the hype about citizen-led constitutional
change.
International Journal of Constitutional Law
, 13 (3), 733–748.
https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mov044
Chambers, S. y Gastil, J. (2021). Deliberation, Democracy, and the Digital Landscape.
Political Studies
, 69 (1), 3-6.
https://
doi.org/10.1177/0032321719901123
Constitutional Convention (2014).
Ninth Report of the Convention on the Constitution: conclusions and nal recommendations
.
https://acortar.link/KFN79L
Courant, Dimitri (2021). Citizens’ Assemblies for Referendums and Constitutional Reforms: Is ere an “Irish Model” for
Deliberative Democracy?
Front. Polit. Sci,
2.
https://acortar.link/8jTNcx
Derenne, Benoît et al. (2 de noviembre de 2011).
G1000 Manifesto
. Eurozine.
https://acortar.link/bAXfZg
Dryzek, John S. (2001). Legitimancy and economy in deliberative democracy.
Political eory
, 29 (5), 651-669.
https://doi.
org/10.1177/0090591701029005003
Elster, Jon (1995). Forces and mechanisms in the constitution-making process.
Duke Law Journal
, 45 (2), 364-396.
https://
doi.org/10.2307/1372906
Farrell, David M.; O´Maley, Eoin y Suiter, Jane (2013). Deliberative Democracy in Action Irish-style: e 2011
We the Citizens
Pilot Citizens’ Assembly.
Irish Political Studies
, 28 (1), 99–113.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2012.745274
Fishkin, James (2009).
When the people speak: deliberative democracy and public consultation
. Oxford University Press.
García Guitián, E. (2016). Democracia digital. Discursos sobre participación ciudadana y TIC.
Revista de Estudios Políticos
,
173, 169-193.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18042/cepc/rep.173.05
Gargarella, Roberto (2019). De la democracia participativa a la deliberación inclusiva: “minip
ú
blicos”, loterías y Constituciones
elaboradas por la ciudadanía (crowdsourced constitutions). Comentarios muy preliminares.
Revista del Centro de Estudios
Constitucionales
, 5 (9), 39-63.
https://acortar.link/PI152R
G1000 (2012).
Final Report: Democratic Innovation in Practice
. G1000.
https://acortar.link/TtaJBw
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
doxa.comunicación |
nº 37
|
July-December of 2023
Álvaro Romero Algora
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
Goethals, Maarten (11 de junio de 2011). Burgerinitiatief rond David Van Reybrouck moet Belgische politiek hervomen.
De
Standaard
.
https://acortar.link/5ss0Ls
Goodrick, Delwyn (2014). Estudios de casos comparativos.
Síntesis metodológicas. Evaluación de impacto
, 9, 1-18.
https://
acortar.link/poz3uB
Habermas, Jürgen (1998).
Facticidad y validez
. Trotta.
Held, David (2007).
Modelos de democracia
(3a ed.). Alianza.
Heller, P. y TM omas Isaac (2003). Democracy and Development: Decentralized Planning in Kerala. En: Fung, Archon y
Wright, Erik Olin (cords.).
Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance
(pp. 77-
110). Verso.
Jacquet, Vincent et al. (2016). e Macro Political Uptake of the G1000 in Belgium. En Reuchamps, Min y Suiter, Jane (eds.).
Constitutional Deliberative Democracy in Europe
(pp. 53-73). ECPR Press.
Jacquet, Vincent y Reuchamps, Min (2018). Who wants to pay for deliberative democracy? e crowdfunders of the G1000 in
Belgium.
European Political Science Review
, 10 (1), 29-49.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773916000163
Lafont, Cristina (2015). Deliberation, Participation and Democratic Legitimacy: Should Deliberative Mini-publics Shape
Public Policy?
Journal of Political Philosophy
, 23 (1), 40-63.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12031
Macpherson, C. B (1982).
La democracia liberal y su época
. Alianza.
Michels, Ank y Binnema, Harmen (2018). Deepening and Connecting Democratic Processes. e Opportunities and Pitfalls
of Mini-Publics in Renewing Democracy.
Social Sciences
, 7 (11), 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7110236
Moue, Chantal (2011).
En torno a lo político
. Fondo de cultura económica.
Mouton, Olivier (10 de junio de 2011). Un G1000 pour sortir de la crise.
Le Soir
.
https://www.lesoir.be/
Navarro, Fernando (2017). El G1000 de Madrid: un ejemplo de sorteo y deliberación como complemento de la representación.
Recerca, revista de pensament i
anàlisi
, 21, 151-157.
http://dx.doi.org/10.6035/Recerca.2017.21.9
OECD. (2020).
Innovative citizen participation and new democratic institutions: Catching the deliberative wave—Highlights
2020
. OECD Publishing.
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/
OIDP (s.f.).
El Modelo de Ostbelgien: un Consejo Ciudadano a largo plazo combinado con Asambleas Ciudadanas a corto
plazo
.
https://acortar.link/sMxf8Z
Oireachtas (10 de julio de 2012). Constitutional Convention: Motion.
Dáil Éireann debate
, vol. 772, n. 1.
https://acortar.link/
ibZ93n
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
| nº 37 |
doxa.comunicación
July-December of 2023
Mini-publics, opportunities and challenges. The cases of Belgium and Ireland
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
Pourtois, H. (2013). Mini-publics et démocratie deliberative.
Politique et Sociétés
, 32 (1), 21-41.
https://doi.
org/10.7202/1018719ar
Programme for Government (2011).
Government for National Recovery 2011-2016
.
https://acortar.link/5CokEd
Programme for Government (2016).
A programme for a partnership government
.
https://acortar.link/8rn3cJ
Reuchamps, Min et al., (2017). Le G1000: une expérience citoyenne de démocratie délibérative.
Dans Courrier hebdomadaire
du CRISP
, 19-20 (2344-2345), 5-104.
https://doi.org/10.3917/cris.2344.0005
Romero Algora, Álvaro (2021). Experiencias de presupuestos participativos en España ante la Covid-19.
Rurali: Revista
interdisciplinar en estudios rurales
, 1 (2), 36-53.
https://doi.org/10.7203/Rurali.1.2.20491
Sampedro Blanco, Víctor F.; Sánchez Duarte, José Manuel y Poletti, Monica (2013). Ciudadanía y tecnopolítica electoral.
Ideales y límites burocráticos a la participación digital.
Co-herencia: revista de humanidades
, 10 (18), 105-136.
https://doi.
org/10.17230/co-herencia.10.18.4
Seijas Villadangos, Esther (2012). Irlanda: reforma constitucional versus convención constitucional.
Teoría y Realidad
Constitucional
, 30, 411-432.
https://doi.org/10.5944/trc.30.2012.7014
Seijas Villadangos, Esther (2016). Constitucionalismo tridimensional (globalización, privatización y burocratización): la
regeneración democrática a través de consultas autonómicas y convenciones estatutarias. En: Tur Ausina, Rosario (Dir.).
Poderes públicos y privados ante la regeneración constitucional democrática
(pp. 189-216). Dykinson.
Seijas Villadangos, Esther (2018). Ciudadanos y constituciones: la participación popular en el proyecto de reforma de la
constitución según la Convención Constitucional Irlandesa. En: Castellà Andreu, Josep Ma. (Coord.).
Parlamento, ciudadanos
y entes territoriales ante la reforma constitucional ¿Quién y cómo participa?
(pp. 123-148). Tirant lo Blanch.
Setälä, M. (2021) Advisory, Collaborative and Scrutinizing Roles of Deliberative Mini-Publics.
Front. Polit. Sci
, 2, 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2020.591844
Sierra Caballero, Francisco (2021). El retorno a Atenas: Democracia participativa y cultura digital. En Adoración Guamán,
Carol Proner y Gisele Ribocom (Eds.).
Lex Mercatoria, derechos humanos y democracia
(pp. 339-373). CLACSO.
Sintomer, Yves (2017). Sorteo y política: ¿de la democracia radical a la democracia deliberativa?
Daimon. Revista Internacional
de Filosofía
, 72, 25-43.
https://doi.org/10.6018/daimon/295531
Smith, Graham y Setälä, Maija (2018). Mini-Publics and Deliberative Democracy. En Bächtiger, Andre et al.
e Oxford
Handbook of Deliberative Democracy
(pp. 300-314). Oxford University Press.
Suiter, Jane y Reuchamps, Min (2016). A Constitutional Turn for Deliberative Democracy in Europe? En Reuchamps, Min y
Suiter, Jane (eds.).
Constitutional Deliberative Democracy in Europe
(pp. 1-13). ECPR Press.
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
doxa.comunicación |
nº 37
|
July-December of 2023
Álvaro Romero Algora
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
Tejedor Fuentes, Laura y Paget, Vanessa (2016). La iniciativa belga “G1000”. Un posible modelo de ciberdemocracia
deliberativa.
Doxa Comunicación: revista interdisciplinar de estudios de comunicación y ciencias sociales
, 23, 101-129.
https://doi.org/10.31921/doxacom.n23a4
e Citizens´ Assembly (2021).
Report of the Citizens´ Assembly on Gender Equality
.
https://www.citizensassembly.ie/
e Citizens´ Assembly (2022a).
Citizens’ Assemblies 2022
.
https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/
e Citizens´ Assembly [@CitizAssembly]. (3 de marzo de 2022b).
Today, 34,000 exclusive invitations from the Taoiseach, @
MichealMartinTD to participate in two new Assemblies on Biodiversity Loss and a Directly Elected Mayor for Dublin begin
arriving to homes across Irish cities, towns, villages and island communities
. [Tweet]. Twitter.
https://acortar.link/F7NzoB
Van Reybrouck, David (2017).
Contra las elecciones
. Taurus
We the Citizens (2011).
Final Report: Participatory Democracy in Action - A Pilot
. We the Citizens.
https://acortar.link/
AFPe2T
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>