In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Taoiseach has proposed a citizens’ assembly on Irish neutrality on the basis that such a forum would allow for careful consideration of a spectrum of opinions on the topic. A poll in the Business Post this weekend found almost 70 per cent of respondents in favour of one.
Citizens’ assemblies have been suggested in response to a wide variety of additional issues facing Irish society at present, from housing to health to the question of a united Ireland. Doubts about the legitimacy of their inclusion in the democratic process have, however, recently gained currency.
Over the past decade Ireland has been to the forefront internationally in incorporating citizens’ assemblies into our democratic process. The roots of Ireland’s journey to citizen deliberation date back to the crisis of confidence in our elected institutions following the 2008 recession and the resulting drive to involve citizens more directly in law reform. Citizens’ assemblies have been established to consider a diverse array of topics, from the complex (like tackling climate change) to the relatively mundane (such as the presidential term).
Critics point out that citizens’ assemblies are not elected and have no special expertise in the areas they are considering. This argument misses the point that it is the very fact that they are composed of neither politicians nor experts that lends these forums legitimacy.
Citizens’ assembly participants have no vested interests and are free to approach their topic with an open mind. Unlike the adversarial style of debate seen in parliament, citizens’ assemblies are designed to be deliberative spaces in which a representative sample of the public can learn from experts and those with lived experience of the status quo and deliberate on the merits of reform.
Difficult decisions
A common complaint about citizens’ assemblies is that they are simply a tool to allow elected representatives to dodge making difficult decisions. The dismissal of citizens’ assemblies as simply a method of political buck-passing, however, not only does a disservice to the citizens that have participated, but also ignores the fact that citizens’ assembly recommendations in Ireland have reflected the outcomes of referendums that achieved fundamental changes to Irish law.
Ireland ranks 100th in the world out of 187 countries for gender equality in parliament. Only 22.5 per cent of TDs elected to the Dáil in 2020 were women
To take the citizens’ assembly on the Eighth Amendment as an example: this assembly voted that the amendment, which operated to bar abortion in almost all circumstances, should be removed and replaced. Some 64 per cent of the members voted that abortion should be available without restriction in Ireland, within certain gestational limits. This is remarkably close to the 66.4 per cent of the public who voted in the referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment and pave the way for the Oireachtas to legislate for termination of pregnancy without restriction within the first 12 weeks of gestation.
Issues such as abortion have proven historically divisive. The 1983 referendum to insert the Eighth Amendment was described as the “second partitioning of Ireland”. Some argued that this citizens’ assembly was simply a ploy for politicians to avoid taking responsibility for the politically toxic subject of abortion. Whether or not this was the case, regardless of the motivation for its establishment, that assembly showed that ordinary citizens are more than capable of grappling with complex ethical, medical and legal issues in a civilised way and can be quite an accurate barometer of wider views.
Representative
Some argue that citizens’ assemblies are not properly representative of the public. Yet our elected institutions themselves are not representative. Ireland ranks 100th in the world out of 187 countries for gender equality in parliament. Only 22.5 per cent of TDs elected to the Dáil in 2020 were women.
Perhaps it is not possible to achieve perfect representativeness in a forum of 99 citizens, but it is still possible to achieve a more accurate representation than we currently see in our national parliament.
We need to look more carefully at the topics that are selected for consideration and the process around how citizens' assembly output is progressed by government
Citizens’ assemblies are not intended to replace elected representatives, nor should they; they are designed to attempt to enhance the law reform process and can go towards addressing the problems of a lack of diversity in parliament.
Those sceptical about the establishment of citizens’ assemblies also point to the various citizens’ assembly recommendations that have never been progressed. This is not a problem with the ability of citizens to deliberate and produce valuable proposals for law and policy reform but rather means we need to look more carefully at the topics that are selected for consideration and the process around how citizens’ assembly output is progressed by government.
Irish neutrality is an entirely appropriate topic to be referred to a citizens’ assembly. Like abortion it is a complex issue which speaks to our values as a nation, and would benefit from careful deliberation by a representative group of citizens, with the assistance of expert input as appropriate.
Recruitment
Lessons have been learned from the citizens’ assemblies held to date and are being put into practice in the establishment of future processes. For instance, the upcoming 2022 citizens’ assemblies are using a new recruitment method; in an effort to be more inclusive any adult resident in the State is eligible to participate, without the requirement to be an Irish citizen or enrolled on the electoral register.
The Irish experience of citizens’ assemblies shows that these bodies are not perfect, but through constant learning and re-evaluation, they have the potential to help bridge the gap between ordinary people and political elites, and to make sensible suggestions for reform.