Institutionalizing deliberative mini-publics? Issues of legitimacy and power for randomly selected assemblies in political systems

Bibliographic Data

ID12985271
AuthorsDimitri Courant (0000-0001-6881-6397, John F. Kennedy University, corresponding author)
Year2021
Volume16
Issue2
Pages162-180
Publication date2021-11-10
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueCritical Policy Studies (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1946-0171 • E-ISSN: 1946-018X
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/19460171.2021.2000453
OpenAlexW3212035322
LanguageEN
Citations received30
References cited44

Randomly selected deliberative mini-publics (DMPs) are on the rise globally. However, they remain ad hoc, opening the door to arbitrary manoeuvre and triggering a debate on their future institutionalization. What are the competing proposals aiming at institutionalizing DMPs within political systems? I suggest three ways for thinking about institutionalization: in terms of temporality, of legitimacy and support, and of power and role within a system. First, I analyze the dimension of time and how this affect DMP institutional designs. Second, I argue that because sortition produces ‘weak representatives’ with ‘humility-legitimacy’, mini-publics hardly ever make binding decisions and need to rely on external sources of legitimacies. Third, I identify four institutional models, relying on opposing views of legitimacy and politics: tamed consultation, radical democracy, representative klerocracy and hybrid polyarchy. They differ in whether mini-publics are interpreted as tools: for legitimizing elected officials; to give power to the people; or as a mean to suppress voting

Deliberative democracy · Democracy · Institutionalisation · Legitimacy · Political science · Politics · Power (physics · Publics · Sociology · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Law · Populism, Right-Wing Movements · Public Administration · Social Media and Politics

Tools

Open DOI