Ampifying deliberative processes for citizen participation
‍

The Citizens' Climate Convention was as much a source of enthusiasm as it was of disappointment. However, it clearly marked a turning point in the practice of citizen participation by revealing the interest of deliberative processes based on mini-publics(1).
It was the result of a deep social crisis and appeared to be a novel device - number of participants, type of sponsor and announced output, media intensity - and made it possible to renew the forms of public participation, by putting at the heart of the French public debate the question of the direct involvement of citizens in the definition of public action, at the legislative and regulatory level.
Since then, and in spite of the criticisms formulated not with regard to the mechanism and its results but rather with regard to the response to the latter, deliberation processes have been implemented almost everywhere on the territory with an unprecedented scale: Citizens' conventions at the territorial level, citizens' assemblies, citizens' juries, citizens' committees, ... All of them, based on the same principle of a panel of participants drawn by lot, are intended to produce a report in response to a given question, thus taking up the canons of citizens' conferences, themselves derived from the experience of consensus conferences.

In the theory of communicative action developed by Habermas, which took concrete form in the 1980s in deliberative polls or consensus conferences, deliberation refers to a method of dialogue in which participants constituting a panel illustrating the diversity of the population (the " mini-public "), debate on the basis of common information, reflect together and influence each other in order to formulate informed collective opinions. These opinions can lead to consensus and/or clarify dissensus.

These deliberative processes have enriched more traditional methods of consultation. Open participation processes are consultation approaches that seek to bring together a large number of volunteers who mobilize according to their own interests to discuss a subject, in a less restrictive framework (" maxi-publics "). Nevertheless, it must be noted that the number of people who participate in these mechanisms is often less than expected.

However, the increasingly frequent recourse to deliberative approaches of mini-publics deserves to be questioned. This proliferation represents a real enrichment of public dialogue methods, but it also questions usual practices. As large-scale systems are about to be launched on a national scale, how can their relevance and robustness be further strengthened?

Strengths and weaknesses of deliberative and open processes

Since its creation in 2004, Res publica has been contributing to the practice of democracy on a daily basis. We set up an engineering that aims to make debates useful and efficient by guaranteeing a clear and easy to understand debate on (often complex) subjects, by deploying various modalities of animation (including deliberation as much as possible) and by ensuring access to debates to as many people as possible: deployment of communication and mobilization tools, use of our participative platform Jenparle

We are nevertheless aware that open consultation processes with a very large audience have their limits, among which are the following:

• An over-representation of certain stakeholders and therefore of opinions held by groups that are highly mobilized for the consultation, thus giving the impression of a majority position even though these groups may be in the minority in the population;
• A difficulty in creating a truly collective dimension to the debate, allowing the outlines of the general interest to be drawn, and in integrating certain participants who do not leave the defence of individual interests, sometimes giving in to the NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) phenomenon;
• Conditions (lack of time, means, information, political support, etc.) that do not always allow for in-depth study of complex subjects and do not help participants to produce informed opinions.

Deliberative approaches are proposed to avoid these pitfalls. By facilitating the dialogue of panels made up of people drawn by lot, they guarantee the participation of people from diverse backgrounds, who are usually not well represented in traditional consultation mechanisms. They thus encourage the consideration of the collective interest. The time spent in in-depth training/information reinforces the understanding of the subjects and their stakes and, with fairly long dialogue times (often four to five times longer than in open processes), facilitates the production of informed opinions.

But is the deliberative approach of mini-publics sufficient? Its implementation raises other questions. What is the legitimacy of randomly selected participants alongside established groups interested in the same subject, such as associations? How can we ensure that all voices will be taken into account and not drowned out by a soft consensus? How can we guarantee the quality and neutrality of the information provided to participants? Beyond political support, what guarantee do participants have that their work will be followed up or, at the very least, that accountability will ensure that the sponsor takes the process seriously?

We are convinced that open participation processes and deliberative mechanisms should not be opposed to each other, but rather can mutually enrich each other through hybrid mechanisms.

What are the possible hybridizations of the devices?

Hybridization consists of combining deliberative and open approaches in the same dialogue device in order to overcome the inherent limitations of each approach and ultimately improve the output of the process and its impact.

This combination of deliberative and participatory approaches can take many forms. Depending on the system, hybridization can vary in terms of temporality, subjects, objectives, participant recruitment methods and governance.

By crossing our experience with the analysis proposed by the CNDP in its note on citizens' assemblies and the possible articulations between mini public (thought of as deliberative) and maxi public (thought of as open participative), we can distinguish three main types of hybridization:

• Concurrent hybridization, when a deliberative mechanism is set up in parallel with an open mechanism and concerns the same objects so that the final decision benefits from a double perspective. Alternatively, the deliberation allows to deal with a precise facet of the object of the participative device. This is the approach that was chosen by the National Food Council (CNA) for the elaboration of an opinion on the sobriety of food packaging. Three exploratory workshops open to the general public were organized by the CNA on the issues of food packaging sobriety in general. At the same time, Res publica assisted the CNA in the design and animation of a panel of 24 randomly selected citizens to work on the modalities and conditions of bulk development. In its final opinion, published in July 2021, the CNA will take into account the recommendations resulting from the two processes.
• Funnel hybridization, when a deliberative process concludes a participatory phase. The objective of the deliberation is to specify, deepen and/or prioritize the results of the participatory process. Let us cite the example of the workshops and citizen committees set up by the Ministerial Delegation for Digital Health (DNS). Five participatory workshops were first organized in different French cities to identify the needs, practices and expectations of citizens, association representatives, elected officials and health professionals regarding digital health. At the end of these workshops, a committee of 28 randomly selected citizens was set up and led by Res publica to deliberate on the advantages and conditions for success of "Mon espace santé", a personal digital health space. Working alongside representatives of patient associations, this citizen committee delivered its opinion in November 2021 to the DNS, which adopted and implemented 70% of the recommendations made by the citizen committee and is preparing to implement the others, particularly those that will require legislative changes.
• Resource hybridization, when an initial deliberative phase informs a subsequent participatory phase. The deliberation aims in this context to produce an opinion that will enrich and enlighten the subsequent participation of the general public, before the final decision is made.(See the example of the agriparc below).

The forms as well as the objectives of hybridization are therefore likely to vary widely from one project to another. Does it work? In what ways does the combination of open participatory and deliberative mechanisms make it possible to overcome their respective limitations?

A recent example of dialogue conducted by Res publica shows the interest of hybridization. With the agriparc project in MontpellierThe local authority organized a voluntary preliminary consultation process, at the stage of the competitive dialogue, at a time when the options were still open.

Insofar as the issues at stake in the park go beyond its direct urban bangs, the aim was to design a participatory process that would broaden the debate beyond the issues of the local area by addressing all the inhabitants of the city. The approach articulated a phase of broad participation at the diagnostic stage and a second deliberative phase. Open to the general public, the first phase consisted of a day of workshops and site walks, supplemented by an online collection of citizens' contributions. With some 300 contributions, this phase of consultation enabled a shared diagnosis of the desired ambitions and expectations for the future agriparc.

A group of 32 metropolitan citizens chosen at random from among the volunteers was then charged with refining this diagnosis. After additional information provided by trainers and work with representatives of local associations and neighborhood authorities, the panel was invited to formulate the desired ambition for the agriparc and deliberate on collective orientations and proposals. The debates were lively and the subjects of dissensus numerous, reflecting divergent visions of the relationship with nature and its uses. However, the deliberative approach made it possible to avoid sterile oppositional postures and to arrive at a common vision; this is its great interest.

In this example, hybridization brought four benefits:

• The organization of an initial participation phase enriched the jury's deliberations: it was encouraged to go beyond the individual opinions of its members to reinforce and argue, in its opinion, the variety of positions and expectations expressed in the diagnosis established with the general public.
• Informed by this diagnosis, the panel's deliberation resulted in a very rich opinion, made up of recommendations that go beyond the interests of local residents and integrate the vision of the inhabitants of other districts of the metropolis.
• The close involvement of local associations and neighborhood authorities in the deliberative process allowed the panel to benefit from the viewpoint and expertise of these actors mobilized on the project, while avoiding, through the framing and moderation of the panel's work, over-representing their positions in the recommendations made to the community.
• As the voice of the general public, of the citizen panel and of the civil society mobilized on the subject, the opinion thus has a considerable weight, which the City and the Metropolis will find it difficult not to take into account in the future construction of the agriparc.

The hybridization of open and deliberative participatory processes makes it possible to multiply and diversify the audiences, but also to articulate their contributions in an in-depth dialogue, in order to ultimately produce an informed and substantiated opinion, made up of collective judgments and not a succession of opinions. It also gives more weight to the proposals with political decision-makers because it gives more visibility to the citizen's opinion.

Its success depends on several factors: the quality of the prior framing of the objectives and themes addressed, the intensity and coherence of the articulation between open participation and deliberative mechanisms, the relevance of the overall consultation mechanism, the implementation of a broader governance, etc.

Hybrid systems provide complementary means for participatory democracy. However, they reach a level of sophistication that requires the training of sponsors who are very attracted by these deliberative processes but still novices in the practice of citizen participation in this form. Professionalism is a guarantee of success that will enable the implementation of effective systems that are recognized as such by all the stakeholders. This is what can already be seen in the few examples cited here.