Strengthening deliberative processes to promote citizen participation

The Citizens' Convention for Climate generated as much enthusiasm as it did disappointment. However, it clearly marked a turning point in the practice of citizen participation by revealing the value of deliberative processes involving small groups of citizens (1).
Emerging from a profound social crisis, it emerged as an unprecedented mechanism – in terms of the number of participants, the type of commissioning body, the announced outcome, and the media attention it received – and it allowed for a renewal of forms of public participation , placing the question of direct citizen involvement in defining public policy, at the legislative and regulatory levels, at the heart of the French public debate.
Since then, and despite criticism leveled not at the mechanism and its results but rather at the response to them, deliberative processes have been implemented across the country on an unprecedented scale: citizen conventions at the territorial level, citizen assemblies, citizen juries, citizen committees, and so on. All, based on the same principle of a randomly selected panel of participants , are designed to produce a report in response to a given question, thus echoing the principles of citizen conferences, themselves derived from the experience of consensus conferences.

In theory of communicative action, which materialized as early as the 1980s in deliberative surveys and consensus conferences, deliberation refers to a method of dialogue where participants, forming a panel illustrating the diversity of the population (the " mini-public "), debate based on shared information , reflect together, and influence one another to formulate informed collective opinions . These opinions can lead to consensus and/or clarify disagreements .

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

However, the increasingly frequent use of mini-public deliberative processes deserves examination. This proliferation represents a real enrichment of public dialogue methods but also raises questions about usual practices . As large-scale initiatives are about to be launched at the national level, 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 contributed to expanding the practice of democracy in everyday life . We implement a methodology designed to make debates useful and effective by ensuring that the (often complex) topics are presented clearly and easily understandable, by deploying varied facilitation methods (including deliberation as much as possible), and by ensuring access to debates for the widest possible audience : deployment of communication and mobilization tools, use of our participatory platform Jenparle , welcoming a large number of participants without mandatory registration or maximum capacity limits…

However, we are aware that open and broad-audience consultation processes have limitations , the main ones being:

• An overrepresentation of certain stakeholders and therefore of opinions, carried by groups highly mobilized for consultation, thus giving the impression of a majority position even though these groups may be a minority in the population;
• A difficulty in creating a truly collective dimension of the debate allowing us to trace the outlines of the general interest and to integrate certain participants who do not go beyond defending individual interests, sometimes giving in to the NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) phenomenon;
• Conditions (lack of time, resources, information, political support, etc.) do not always allow for in-depth exploration of complex subjects and do not help participants to produce informed opinions.

Deliberative processes are proposed to avoid these pitfalls. By facilitating dialogue within panels composed of randomly selected individuals, they guarantee the participation of diverse audiences , who are usually underrepresented in traditional consultation mechanisms. This promotes the consideration of the collective interest . In-depth training and information sessions enhance understanding of the issues and their implications, and, with extended dialogue periods (often four to five times longer than in open processes), facilitate the development of informed opinions.

However, is this deliberative approach with small groups sufficient? Its implementation raises further 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 are heard and not lost in a weak 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 with action or, at the very least, that accountability will ensure that the sponsor takes the initiative seriously?

We are convinced that open participatory processes and deliberative mechanisms should not be opposed, but can instead enrich each other through hybrid approaches .

What hybridizations of the devices are possible?

Hybridization involves combining deliberative and open approaches within a single dialogue framework to overcome the inherent limitations of each approach and ultimately improve the outcome and impact of the process .

This combination of deliberative and participatory methods can take many forms . Depending on the framework, hybridization can vary in terms of timeframe, topics, objectives, participant recruitment methods, and governance.

By combining our experience with the analysis proposed by the CNDP in its report on citizens' assemblies and the possible connections between a small public (conceived as deliberative) and a large public (conceived as open participatory), we can distinguish three main types of hybridization :

• Concurrent hybridization occurs when a deliberative process is implemented alongside an open process that addresses the same issues, allowing the final decision to benefit from dual perspectives. Alternatively, the deliberation process can focus on a specific aspect of the participatory process's objective. This approach, for example, was chosen by the National Food Council (CNA) for developing an opinion on reducing food packaging waste . The CNA organized three exploratory workshops open to the public on the challenges of reducing food packaging waste in general. Simultaneously, Res publica assisted the CNA in designing and facilitating a panel of 24 randomly selected citizens to work on the methods and conditions for developing bulk sales. In its final opinion published in July 2021 , the CNA incorporated the recommendations from both approaches.
• Funnel hybridization occurs when a deliberative process concludes a participatory phase. The objective of the deliberation here is to clarify, deepen, and/or prioritize the results of the participatory process. A good example is the workshops and citizen committees established by the Ministerial Delegation for Digital Health (DNS). Five participatory workshops were initially organized in different French cities to identify the needs, practices, and expectations regarding digital health among citizens, association representatives, elected officials, and healthcare professionals. Following these workshops, a committee of 28 randomly selected citizens was established and facilitated by Res publica to deliberate on the advantages and conditions for the success of “My Health Space,” a personal digital health space. Working in tandem with representatives of patient associations, this citizens' committee delivered its opinion in November 2021 to the DNS , which adopted and implemented 70% of the recommendations made by the citizens' committee and is preparing the implementation of the others, including those that will require legislative changes.
• Resource hybridization occurs when an initial deliberative phase informs a subsequent participatory phase. In this context, the deliberation aims to produce an opinion that will enrich and inform the subsequent public participation before the final decision is made ( see the example of the agri-park below).

The forms and objectives of hybridization are therefore likely to vary considerably from one approach to another. Does it work? How does combining open, participatory, and deliberative approaches allow us to overcome their respective limitations?

A recent example of dialogue conducted by Res publica demonstrates the value of hybridization. With the agripark project in Montpellier , the local authority organized a voluntary preliminary consultation process at the competitive dialogue stage, when options were still open.

Since the park's issues extend beyond its immediate urban fringes, the aim was to design a participatory approach that broadened the debate beyond purely local concerns by engaging all residents of the metropolitan area. The approach involved a phase of broad participation during the diagnostic phase and a second, deliberative phase . Open to the general public, the first step consisted of organizing a day of workshops and site visits, supplemented by an online collection of citizen contributions. With some 300 contributions, this consultation phase enabled the creation of a shared understanding of the desired ambitions and expectations for the future agri-park.

A group of 32 metropolitan citizens, randomly selected from among the volunteers, was then tasked with refining this understanding . After additional information provided by trainers and work with representatives of local associations and neighborhood bodies, the panel was invited to formulate the desired ambition for the agri-park and deliberate on collective directions and proposals . The debates were lively, with numerous points of disagreement, reflecting divergent visions regarding the relationship with nature and its uses. However, the deliberative process made it possible to avoid sterile opposition and arrive at a shared vision ; this is its great strength.

In this example, the hybrid approach brought four benefits :

• Organising an initial phase of participation enriched the jury's deliberation: it was encouraged to go beyond the individual opinions of its members to strengthen 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 deliberations resulted in a very comprehensive opinion, consisting of recommendations that go beyond the interests of local residents and incorporate the vision of residents from other parts of the metropolis.
• The close involvement of local associations and neighbourhood bodies in the deliberative process allowed the panel to benefit from the perspective and expertise of these stakeholders mobilized on the project, while avoiding, through the framing and moderation of the panel's work, overrepresenting their positions in the recommendations issued to the community.
• Bearing the voice of the general public, the citizen panel and civil society mobilized on the subject , the opinion given thus has a considerable weight , which the City and the Metropolis will hardly be able to ignore in the future construction of the agripark.

The hybridization of open and deliberative participatory processes allows for both a multiplication and diversification of audiences , as well as the articulation of their contributions in an in-depth dialogue ultimately producing an informed and substantiated opinion, comprised of collective judgments rather than a succession of individual views. It also gives greater weight to proposals with political decision-makers because it provides greater visibility to citizen input .

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

Hybrid mechanisms provide complementary tools for participatory democracy . However, they reach a level of sophistication that necessitates training for those commissioning these processes, who are very attracted to them but still new to the practice of citizen participation in this form. Professionalism is a guarantee of success, enabling the implementation of effective systems that are recognized as such by all stakeholders. This is already evident in the few examples cited here.