One, Two, Many Citizens’ Assemblies

They are neither representative in their composition nor do they represent the electorate. Nevertheless, citizens’ assemblies selected by lot can provide valuable input for policymakers. To make clear that they do not speak on behalf of all citizens in Germany, but only for the 160 people who make up the assembly, at least two assemblies should be convened for each issue. Both should consider the same topic simultaneously and entirely independently of one another. Different outcomes would not be a disadvantage. On the contrary.

Opinion polls indicate that confidence in political parties’ ability to solve problems is waning, as is support for Germany’s democracy. Citizens’ assemblies are intended to help counter this trend. Unconstrained by entrenched structures, they are expected to develop proposals on issues such as climate action. According to the proposal put forward by Letzte Generation, this could work as follows:
“The government should make a public commitment to introduce the legislation required to implement the measures developed by the citizens’ assembly. It should also work to build the necessary support for these measures and legislative proposals in parliament and, once the laws have been passed, implement them with unprecedented speed and determination. This is a process that enables genuine public participation and strengthens trust in our democracy.”

It is clear that this proposal would undermine representative democracy. The government and parliament would be reduced to bodies responsible for implementing the decisions of these “societal councils,” as Letzte Generation calls the randomly selected assemblies.

The joint motion submitted by the SPD, Alliance 90/The Greens, FDP and The Left does not go that far. It was adopted by the German Bundestag on 10 May 2023, with the CDU/CSU voting against it. The motion established a citizens’ assembly on “Food in Transition: Between Private Choices and Government Responsibilities.” Its findings are to be presented to the German Bundestag as “recommendations for action in the form of a citizens’ report.” Nine additional committees are to participate in the deliberations, coordinated by the Committee on Food and Agriculture.

As a result, the “Citizens’ Report” receives considerably more parliamentary attention than the environmental assessments issued by the German Advisory Council on the Environment or the reports of the German Council of Economic Experts, which are submitted only to the Federal Government. The terms “Citizens’ Assembly” and “Citizens’ Report” suggest that the body deliberated on behalf of us all. After all, we all consider ourselves citizens. Yet this claim is borne out neither by the selection process for its 160 members nor by the way the deliberations were organised, which left considerable scope for external influence.

The underlying assumption is that every resident of Germany aged 16 or over should have an equal chance of being invited to take part in the citizens’ lottery. However, only the 20,000 people out of a population of 83 million who were actually invited are likely to have regarded it as an opportunity to participate. Citizens’ assemblies cannot fulfil their promise of participation for all 83 million people in Germany.

The sample selection was based solely on the federal state and size of the municipality in which participants lived, as well as their age, gender, highest educational qualification and “attitude towards a topic-related question”, namely whether they followed a vegetarian or vegan diet. Participants were not asked whether they were on a particular diet, generally prepared their own meals or mainly ate in a canteen. Other factors likely to be more relevant to eating habits, such as disposable income or the size of the household to be provided for, were also disregarded. Why?

Ultimately, after extensive weighting and repeated adjustments, 160 people were selected by lot. They cannot speak for anyone but themselves.

The motion states: “When designing the process, care must be taken to ensure that participants are able to exert sufficient influence over the thematic priorities within the remit of the Citizens’ Assembly.” In other words, the Assembly is not expected to make autonomous decisions, but rather decisions within a guided process. More important than how the Citizens’ Assembly is composed, therefore, is the question of who provides this guidance and what exactly it entails.
According to the German Bundestag, “The Citizens’ Assembly will be supported by the Citizens’ Assemblies Unit of the Bundestag Administration, which will provide guidance to the external service provider commissioned to conduct the process.”

The external service provider responsible for moderating the Citizens’ Assembly will therefore itself operate under guidance. In addition, 16 experts will form a scientific advisory board. They are to be appointed by the parliamentary groups in the Bundestag, “by consensus wherever possible.” Alongside questions relating to food and nutrition, the advisory board must also be able to provide scientific expertise on “the role the state should play in providing nutrition education in schools, whether it should introduce tax measures or intervene in pricing.”

Conclusion: Contrary to what the selection process’s description of the Assembly as “Germany in miniature” might suggest, citizens’ assemblies are not representative in the sense of an opinion poll. Their work is guided externally and is not fully autonomous. They are more akin to carefully constructed focus groups. In this capacity, like think tanks, they can provide valuable input for policymakers. Responsibility for implementation, however, remains with parliament and government.