Citizens’ juries and deliberative democracy

The growing interest in forms of deliberative democracy indicates, on the one hand, widespread dissatisfaction with aspects of our contemporary political practices and, on the other hand, a reflective awareness that alternative practices are plausible options for us. Within contemporary democratic theory, there is an emerging concern with the growing difference and distance between the subjectivity, motives and intentions of citizens and the political decisions made in their name. ¹ The activities, backgrounds and interests of political representatives are seen as far removed from the lives and perspectives of citizens. Although periodic elections act as ‘a continuous discipline on the elected to take constant notice of public opinion’, ² the mandate that representatives enjoy extends over a period within which citizens have very little impact on decisions made in their name. The principal-agent form of representation, so dominant within liberal democracies, rests on the fact that the political representative is able to deliberate and decide for others. ³ But, critics contend, the lack of presence or ‘voice’ of the politically marginalized, such as women and ethnic minorities, in political decision-making processes means that their interests and perspectives are systematically excluded or at least not adequately addressed. As Phillips argues, ‘when policies are worked out for rather than with a politically excluded constituency, they are unlikely to engage all relevant concerns’. ⁴