The news that a Labour government might make use of citizens’ assemblies has sparked wide debate about the merits of such bodies. Much of the discussion has, however, been based on misunderstandings of how citizens’ assemblies really work. Alan Renwick here provides an essential guide.

1. What is a citizens’ assembly?

Let’s start with the basics. A citizens’ assembly is a body of people who are chosen by lottery to examine a specific policy issue. There are typically 50–150 members, and the selection process is designed so they are as representative as possible of the wider population.

Meetings generally take place at weekends (or evenings for local assemblies). Two to six weekends is typical, depending on the size of the issue, though some assemblies have taken longer.

Members discuss among themselves and hear from witnesses. Professional facilitators keep the discussions on topic and enable everyone to contribute. Members gradually build their ideas and then agree recommendations, which are presented in a report.

2. Are citizens’ assemblies properly representative?

Yes, it is generally possible for assembly membership to be highly representative of the wider public. Selection by lot, much as for jury service, is part of what achieves that – many people who would never think of running for election do end up in citizens’ assemblies.

One difference from jury service is that the people who are selected to take part can choose whether to accept the invitation – and most in fact choose not to. But recruitment is carefully structured to counter the effects of this, with a representative sample being taken from those who reply. Groups that are less likely to accept the invitation – such as the politically disengaged or those on lower incomes – get boosted back up at this stage. Care is likewise taken to ensure a spread of views on the relevant issue: Climate Assembly UK, for example, made sure to include people who do not think climate change is a major issue.

People are also paid to take part – a typical rate being in the region of £150 a weekend. At least for a nationwide assembly, they also get a free weekend in a nice hotel, plus travel expenses, and help, if needed, to cover for caring responsibilities. Many people will freely admit to joining an assembly for the money or because they fancied a weekend away from the kids. That is as it should be: the greater the range of reasons people have for joining, the more broadly representative they will be.

3. Can the organisers of an assembly bias the process?

Critics sometimes worry that assembly organisers may skew the process, particularly in the selection of witnesses. There is no doubt that this could be done, but multiple safeguards are normally put in place to prevent it:

• Assemblies should be run by reputable, independent organisations – just as for polling and other forms of opinion research.
• An assembly should always have an advisory board, including representatives of a range of different views on the issues in hand.
• Witness presentations and all other materials provided to assembly members should be made public, so they can be scrutinised by anyone with concerns.
• If the assembly is long enough, assembly members can be empowered to request additional witnesses or evidence themselves.

4. Do citizens’ assemblies make binding decisions?

Some of the media reporting over the interview with Keir Starmer’s Chief of Staff, Sue Gray, that revealed Labour’s thinking has suggested that citizens’ assemblies ‘could be used to bypass Whitehall and make key decisions’. But serious people do not think that citizens’ assemblies should make binding decisions. Democracy must include checks and balances; no citizens’ assembly should ever bypass the other parts of the policy-making process. And decision making should lie with elected politicians who are accountable to the electorate at large.

Rather, citizens’ assemblies should recommend. The democratic ideal is that decision-making should be both carefully considered and responsive to public opinion. That can be a hard combination, when opinion can be buffeted by the shoutiest voices. Assemblies allow informed public opinion to become clearer. Evidence from Ireland suggests that they can also, if used well, help to frame more thoughtful policy discussion in the media and the public at large. They thus help policy-makers to do their jobs well, rather than replace those policy-makers.

5. How would an assembly interact with government and parliament?

So citizens’ assemblies are there to help government, parliament, and the wider public in weighing options and scrutinising proposals.

For example, they might supplement or replace traditional consultation processes, which cost a lot but often hear the voices only of a narrow range of people. They might be used to stimulate thoughtful public discussion around complex issues. On some constitutional matters, they might replace old-style royal commissions or operate in conjunction with such expert-led reviews.

Some have asked whether citizens’ assemblies could really work alongside government and parliament as I have suggested: doesn’t the Brexit referendum show that, if MPs ‘subcontract’ a question to the public and get an answer they dislike, the consequences may be tricky? But the current danger does not seem to be that citizens’ assemblies are being taken too seriously.

On the contrary, the bigger danger is that citizens’ assembly recommendations might not be given the weight they deserve. The recommendations of two assemblies convened in recent years by UK parliamentary select committees – on social care and climate change – have received disappointingly scant attention. If that happens, such assemblies become meaningless. While assembly recommendations should not be treated as binding, policy-makers should create such bodies only if they are genuinely interested in – and intend to give due weight to – their conclusions.

6. What of the argument that we already have a citizens’ assembly – called parliament?

The oft-heard statement that ‘we have a citizens’ assembly – it’s called parliament’ is a nice catchphrase, but it is not a serious argument. Most sizeable democracies have bicameral parliaments because there is more than one way to represent the people, and because looking at things from different angles generally leads to better decisions. Citizens’ assemblies offer another form of representation.

No one could credibly claim that our political system is currently in tip-top shape. Certainly, our recent research suggests that public confidence in it is low. There is widespread disillusionment with the quality of public discussion, and a sense that debate is often more about partisan point-scoring than a serious search for the best policy options. Citizens’ assemblies offer at least a proposal for how things could be made a bit better.

7. What issues are citizens’ assemblies best suited to?

You cannot hold a citizens’ assembly on every issue: they are costly in both time and money, so should be reserved for relatively major issues where speed is not essential. Nor will an assembly be useful on a question with a technocratically correct answer. And an assembly, even if it works well in itself, is likely to be ignored in the wider debate if views on the issue in hand are already deeply polarised.

Citizens’ assemblies are best suited to circumstances where there is general agreement that the status quo is unsatisfactory, but parties have no settled view on the best way forward. On many such issues – those in the so-called ‘too difficult box’ – policy-makers often feel trapped, knowing they will meet hostility whatever way they choose to go. Social care reform, Lords reform, aspects of climate policy, and assisted dying might all be examples falling into this category.

Citizens’ assemblies remain relatively new, and they are still unfamiliar to most people. Beginning with relatively low-salience issues would be sensible, allowing space to refine the model and build awareness and confidence, before considering whether to scale up.

8. So are citizens’ assemblies a good idea?

Citizens’ assemblies are no panacea: hopes that they could rapidly lead to an entirely new kind of democracy free of all the dysfunctional features of our current system are a pipe dream. But evidence from Ireland and elsewhere suggests that, provided they are run well and (crucially) provided they are taken seriously by the policy-makers who convene them, they can enable more thoughtful and more inclusive policy discussion. In this way, they can help politicians and officials do a good job. And they might also start to address the despair that many people feel today at the health of our democracy.

The Unit ran the Citizens’ Assembly on Democracy in the UK in 2021, as part of our Democracy in the UK after Brexit project. Materials from the assembly’s meetings are available here, and the assembly’s report is available here.

About the author

Alan Renwick is Professor of Democratic Politics at UCL and Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit.