Otto-suhr-institute

3. Apparitions, dissemination and hybridisation: the multiplication of models of mini-public

In parallel to the previous process concerning the pioneer models, develop from the end of 1980 a series of new instruments which are for part originals and in part the result of the dissemination of Planungszellen and Citizens Juries.

3.1Two original models

3.1 .1The Teknologi-Rådet and the Konsensuskonference

It is in 1987 that the Danish Committee of the technology being tested for the first time an instrument which he called consensus conference, drawing on the model of the Consensus Development Conference developed in the United States from 1977 onwards in the medical community who married the following diagram: a group of doctors and representatives of associations of patients, recruited through the press or by co-optation, is brought into discussion with a panel of experts on a case and then medical formula after deliberation an opinion on what should be the good practice of the profession vis-a-vis this cas61. The Danish committee adapted this model by replacing the doctors by a group of laymen composed of approximately 15 citizens who meet during two training sessions during which they prepare a series of questions they ask then in a public conference has a dozen of experts and representatives of associations, political and economic world. At the end of this conference, they withdraw to deliberate on a common opinion that they make public. At first glance, it is located opposite to a model close to those previously presented. The comparison with the Planungszelle and Citizens Juries made yet highlight four fundamental differences. First, the panel of citizens was not, at the beginning, drawn but well chosen by the organizing committee on the basis of nominations of a page sent by interested citizens in response to an advert in the press. The intention of the promoters was therefore certainly to obtain a cross-section of the population but by means of a review: not " anyone " but of citizens interesses62. It has not been possible to define at what point exactly61On

The history of the model, see Joss & Durant (1995), Joss (2000) and Bourg & Boy (2005).

62See Grundahl (1995, 35) and Kluver (1995, 46) : " We then know who we are getting: interested citizens. ≪

205

Chapter 4: The Planungszelle and the jury of citizens, two models aleatoriens paradigmatic

Deflate the recruitment has evolved to be based on a draw. Very probably was the result of experiments conducted in other countries such as France or the Allemagne63. However, in most cases, the principle of recruitment by announcement of press is remains the rule. The second difference is that the participants are not paid for their participation, although sometimes a compensation of loss of their wages is granted. Unlike the other two models, the group work is cut into three distinct phases: the training, the conference and the deliberation, all on a term a little longer since these three phases are divided on different weekends. The last important difference relates to the inspiration of the model which is mainly outcome of the reflection on the democratic evaluation of scientific choice. It is not - for the promoters of the idea - to do participate in the formulation of specific public policies but rather to take the opinion of the population on scientific fields in construction and controversies. The Consensus Conference have been known for a great success in Denmark where they are imposed as a major tool of deliberation. They were then spread in Europe (Netherlands, United Kingdom and then Germany and France) and then in the world. Their number is estimated at more than 50 in about fifteen countries (Hendriks 2005, 89), mainly on issues around biotechnology (GMO, prenatal diagnosis, etc).

3.1 .2The "third thief": Fishkin and its Deliberative Poll

James Fishkin is, has side of Dienel and Crosby, the third major pioneering practices of mini-public. It will develop at the end of 1980 the concept of Deliberative Poll, he later define as well (Fishkin 1995, 162) :

" The idea is simple. Take a national random sample of the electorate and transport those people from all over the country to a single place. Town immersed tea sample in the exits, with carefully balanced briefing materials, with intensive discussions in small groups, and with the chance to question competing experts and politicians. At the end of several days of working through the issues face to face, poll the participants in detail. The resulting surveys Odeon has representation of the considered judgments of the public - tea views the entire country would come to if it had the same experience of behaving more like ideal citizens immersed in the issues for an extended period. ≪

As previously, we can trace the influences of Fishkin in contextual terms, academic and personnels64. The context of the end of 1980 in which Fishkin of63See

Bourg & Boy (2005) and Schiktanz & Naumann (2003).

64With however a reservation even greater than for Dienel and Crosby due to contact much less staff and intensive. The main sources are therefore third.

206

3. Apparitions, dissemination and hybridisation: the multiplication of models of mini-public

Developed his model is certainly less fertile in terms of interest for participation, on the other hand, it is much more rich in regard to the question of the deliberation, academic field in which Fishkin evolved, after having long worked on justice sociale65. These work as well as the research of Dahl on democracy and the proposals of Crosby will profoundly the influencer66. Another source of inspiration seems to be a series of practical experiences of deliberation, including the Televote or Granada 500 .The whole of these influences is reflected in all the cases in the critical analysis of the liberal system that Fishkin developed in several writings (cf. chapter 3) while offering a solution has both original and old as democracy: the National Convention outcome which will become the Deliberative Poll and which he published a first formulation in 1988, and then a more detailed version in 199167. Whilst seeking to realize his idea, he puts on foot with Robert Luskin the Center for Deliberative Polling68. In 1994, he found partners in England, including the chain Channel Oven and organized its first ever deliberative poll having for subject the delinquency which the convincing results open the way to a series of four other projects in the United Kingdom, before that does takes place the first experience in the United States . Without going into the details of the dissemination of the model, it may be noted that to this day the Center identified more than fifty experiences throughout the world, in countries as diverse as Bulgaria, Greece, China, or the UE69.

Deliberative polling share a large number of elements in common with the Planungszellen and Citizens Juries,, the most salient of which are the draw as mode of recruitment, the principle of deliberation in small groups combined with the plenary sessions, the organization of the process by an entity " independent " on such that can be the Center for Deliberative Democracy ,the presence of a predetermined agenda that the group may not change, the contribution of external information in the form contradictory, a short duration (the Deliberative Poll however, tend to be more short of a day) and a scientific accompaniment. However, it seems there is four fundamental differences: first, the drawing

65See in particular his book on justice (Fishkin 1983) in which he proposes to allocate the children to families by draw. See also the journal of Kress (1980) on his book.

66Fishkin (2009, ix). See also Fishkin (1991, vii) and Crosby (2007, 2).

67He declared having had the idea during a seminar on the presidential primary american in 1987 (Fishkin 2009, x). The first proposal is located in Fishkin (1988) and the long version, in Fishkin (1991).

68The center is first attached to the University ofTexas before migrating to Stanford University in 2003 where he is still under the name of Center for Deliberative Democracy.

69We will come back on these experiences in the chapter 6. For items on the dissemination process and its key players, see the part " thanks " in Fishkin (2009) which provides very good indices.

207

Chapter 4: The Planungszelle and the jury of citizens, two models aleatoriens paradigmatic

Is done on a pool consists of people who responded has a first survey. There is therefore a pre-sorting and the draw is a double echelon. Secondly, the purpose of the deliberative poll is to have an informed opinion of the population which must not necessarily be translated in the form of recommendations or concrete results of planning. It is, rather, in the context of the measure of the opinion that in the co-design of public policies, a difference which, as will be seen is fundamental. The opinion poll insisted on deliberation more than on the participation70. Thirdly, the participation is not automatically paid, which again brings the model of that of polls or consensus conferences. Fourthly, the group is far more important, 400 persons, since unlike the Planungszellen and Citizens Juries it is planned to reach a statistical representativeness.

3.2The hybrids: a constellation of models more or less ambitious

The process of dissemination of historical models and development of new instruments submitted them-even has dissemination, resulted from the middle of the 1990s was the emergence of hybrid forms which we will put forward the two models the most noteworthy.

3.2 .1The Bürgerjurys

From 2001, the city of Berlin puts in place a series of tools of participatory democracy in the framework of its policy of urban renewal. If it uses a process of classics such as the Planungszellen, it will be the source of a new hybridization interesting for the mini-public, creating the Burgerjurys it is-a-say juries of citizens who are a component designed for not more than a deliberate and then to make recommendations but has take decisions on financing of projects. These experiences have been studied in detail (Koehl & Sintomer 2002, Rocke 2005) and we shall be satisfied to here to emphasize three elements: firstly, they have a financial power non-negligible since the annual sums has provision represent an amount of 500,000 euros. Secondly, these juries are compounds that has one half by the citizens learned the fate, the other half being constituted70Although

This element is changing with the times, particularly when the Deliberative Poll is mixed with other models such as the Planungszelle or conferences of citizens.

208

3. Apparitions, dissemination and hybridisation: the multiplication of models of mini-public

Killed of interested persons. Therefore they are a mini-public joint. Thirdly they exist on a relatively long duration since they are renewed only once a year.

3.2 .2The Citizens Assemblies

The model of the citizens assembly is without a doubt the greatest innovation in the field of mini-public since their invention. It represents, as we shall see, a real change of scale (Smith 2009a, 5). We can trace the birth of the instrument at the end of 1990, while the themes of participatory democracy and deliberative font their path in the whole of western democracies. The Canadian province of British Columbia, is found after the 1996 elections in a political impasse: the NOC71 - one of the two parties of the province's historical - won the majority of seats despite a minority of votes because of the electoral system of first past the post. The debate on the reform of the electoral system, recurring topic in Canada, takes a turn urgent and fits in the platform of parties losers (especially the Liberals, who had obtained the majority of votes). In this context, a group of political actors " has the retirement " - but well integrated into the networks of the British Columbia liberal party - formulated the idea that the best way to reform the electoral system is to convene an assembly of citizens learned the sort72. Under the direction of its leader, Gordon Campbell, and in collaboration with the proponents of the idea, the liberal party incorporates the proposal of a " Citizens Assembly " in its program during the campaign of 2001 (Rainey 2006, 3). The project is accurate after the overwhelming victory of the party in elections and Campbell, became prime minister, asked one of the promoters of the idea of translating the assembly (Gibson 2002). The model that eventually be formalised and put in place in 2003 is the result of a liberal hybridization between a deliberative poll and a constituent assembly: we found the draw

71NOC - National Democratic Party: national democratic party.

72The main actors who are pushing the idea are: 1. Gordon Gibson (politician of long date to the " liberal party " on, libertarian, several times candidate has federal and provincial elections, researcher at the Fraser Institute,a private research institution of inspiration neo-liberal), 2. Rafe Mair (long-time member of the social democratic party, he abandoned his post of member has the house of British Columbia in 1981 to become the presenter radio ; in the years 90 he became famous in the whole of Canada for its opposition to the reform process of the constitution; he met Nick Loenen - cf. infra - in September 1999 and offers him to create a reflection group on electoral reform in British Columbia), 3. Nick Loenen (municipal councillor and then as a member regional, member of the social democratic party that he then exits, founded an NGO called Fair Voting which will play a major role in the transmission of the idea of the assembly; Loenen is the man from the shadows of the Citizens' Assembly ), 4. Mel Smith (from 1967 to 1987 responsible for the constitutional reform at the provincial level; in 1999 it is part of the reflection group on the constituent assembly; he died in 2001 but remains a reference for his companions on the road). 209

Chapter 4: The Planungszelle and the jury of citizens, two models aleatoriens paradigmatic

Fate, the principle of deliberation and the importance of the educational process of the model of Fishkin73. But it is a process of long-term, focused on electoral reform, which includes a phase of hearings and ends by a referendum has mandatory value. So many elements borrowed from has the idea of a constituent assembly. The project is taking place in 2004, involving 160 citizens on a full year and ends by a referendum. Given the fact that the descriptive aspects of the Assembly are well connus74, suffice it to note here a few elements of comparison with the other models of mini-public. First of all, the drawing is done in all the province in two steps: a thousand citizens are drawn at random and then invited to an information meeting during which it is explained to them the details of the approach and the amount of work that it represents. At the end of each of these meetings, the participants can choose to register for the assembly itself. A draw is then carried out on the basis of quotas. Then, the duration of the assembly is much greater than all the other experiences since it extends on 10 weekends a year. In addition, the mandate is particularly wide since it is for the citizens to prepare a proposal of law entire. Finally, the document produced by the assembly serves as the basis has a referendum at the level of the province, which makes the participants of the legislators.

3.3The mini-public arrive in France

3.3 .1The conferences of citizens

The first French experience of mini-public seems to have been the conference of citizen on the genetically modified plants of 1998 organized by the city of science and the parliamentary office for evaluation of scientific and technical choices and who also strongly motivated the Danish model of Consensus Conference (Vergne 2008). It is therefore through the technical democracy, that the model has taken off in the hexagone. The organizers of this first event do not seem to have had knowledge at the time neither of the Planungszelle nor the Citizens Jury but have adopted the fundamental characteristic of a recruitment by drawing rather than by means of the press. Since then, a dozen experiments have taken place in France, most of which were very clearly in the same thematic focus (cf. annex,

73Gibson visit Fishkin in 2002.

74See in particular Smith (2009a) or Warren & Pearse (2008). 210

3. Apparitions, dissemination and hybridisation: the multiplication of models of mini-public

Illustration 64, p. 400) although in configurations of actors and motivations fairly diverse (Boy 2006, 2-8). At the methodological level, the conferences of citizens gather together between 15 and 30 participants, chosen by a polling institute, either at the regional level either at the national level when two training sessions and a session of discussion with experts. The recommendations are published and disseminated to the public. The model has imposed in France as the benchmark for mini-public and it has strongly influenced the arrival and development of citizens' juries, as we will see now.

3.3 .2The hybridization and the emergence of the jury citizen - citizen workshop

Although the first mention of the Planungszelle in France seems refit has 1976 (Dienel 1976), it must wait for 2003 for that model will be used for the first time and 2006 for it between - and with him the subject of mini-public - actually in the national political debate. It is from 1996 onwards that French researchers are interested in models of deliberative democracy for example, by inviting actors as Hans Harms or promoters english of the model around the team of the IPPR75 while keeping the focus on the conferences of citizens. The beginning of the dissemination of the model of Dienel and Crosby seems to reside in 2002, with the emergence of publications around a conference organized in Paris that brought together many players in European democracy participative76. The German model as well as English or Spanish are presented and one can imagine that the first dynamic of dissemination are being put in place at that time. This interest university does not explain fully the reasons put forward in the first two experiments baptized " jury of citizens " in 2003 and 2006 carried out without explicit references to the Planungszelle or the Citizens Jury, but taking as reference the consensus conferences and citizens while employing a methodology more modest77. The actual dissemination of the model will in fact begin in 2004 when some regions, freshly earned by the socialist party, are going to make of the participatory democracy a Phare project of their mandate while supporting a constant contact with the researchers active in the field of

75IPPR - Institute for Public Policy Research: Institute for Research in public policy. (Cf. infra, p. 213)

76See Blondiaux (2002) or Koehl (2002). See also Bacquã©, & Sintomer (2005) which is the book that resulted from the 2002 conference. As Dienel invited to this conference but could not come (bottom Dienel, Bd2).

77It is a jury realized within the Center hospitalier universitaire de Lille who has treaty of the project of establishing and of a jury of citizens in Meurthe et Moselle on the theme of trees at the edge of the county roads. But in the first case, the recruitment was done by nomination and review and lasted a weekend plus one day. And in the second, the whole process has not exceeded a day.

211

Chapter 4: The Planungszelle and the jury of citizens, two models aleatoriens paradigmatic

Participatory democracy. This is especially the case in Poitou-Charentes or in Rhones-Alpes , region in which is organized in 2006 a first  workshop "citizen " on the future of rural areas in Europe, which is part of a project europeen78. Subsequently, the region organized four other workshops on transport, nanotechnologies, the evaluation of public policies and participatory democracy. However, it was in October 2006 that the subject will actually drill in the public sphere french. On the 22 of this month, SéGolã¨ne Royal, candidate for the socialist primary for the presidential elections of the following year declared in public " that there is a need for clarity the way in which the elected representatives will be able to render account, at regular intervals, has Juries citizens learned the fate " on79. We know what reactions this statement has caused in France (Sintomer 2007) and we will see later what practical consequences it will have two years later in Poitou-Charentes .

4. Reasons for the choice of the models Planungszelle and jury citizen

The detour history allows you to formulate a series of general comments on the mini-public (4.1 ) which authorize a draw more accurate conclusions on the relevance of the choice of the Planungszelle and the jury of citizens for the test of theoretical assumptions (4.2 ).

4.1Analytical Return

The whole of the original models, of the Planungszelle has the Deliberative Poll in passing by the conferences of consensus and the citizens' juries have evolved during the period and are mixtures; now we are going to be interested in these intersections.

4.1 .1Transposition, transfer and influence: Three modes of dissemination

From an analytical point of view, we can distinguish three modes of dissemination of the experiences of mini-public: the transposition, the transfer, and the influence. In the first case, the original model is imported directly without change. This is the case in Spain or the German model is applied in the same way by a former member of the research center of Wupper78Cf.

Supra, p. 204. See also Vergne (2009a).

79See between other articles of the world of 24 and October 26, 2006.

212

4. Reasons for the choice of the models Planungszelle and jury citizen

Tal ; a process that is found in Austria and in Suisse80. The only noticeable difference is the name since the Planungszellen become " kernels of participatory intervention " in Spain, a " Report of the inhabitants " or a " report " on citizen in Suisse81. The same goes with the Deliberative Poll which is transposed without real changes during experiments in Europe or even in China and which are supervised or at least accompanied by Fishkin. In the second type, the actors are importing the original idea but the transform at the time of the implement. This is the case in the United Kingdom or Australia (Carson 2006, 3). The institute for public policy research (IPPR) in London just as the researchers from the University of Sydney come in contact with Dienel and Crosby during the years 90 and are requesting information on the model. Was put in place a university collaboration (invitations and reciprocal visits) which led to concrete achievements during which the original model is modifie82. The experiences of english 1996 is taking place as well on three days with a draw by quotas, each project with only one jury. In addition, the work in small groups is done with the presence of a facilitator, while in Germany and the United States this space is considered " sacred " on it is-a-say reserve in the deliberations of the citizens among themselves. In the United Kingdom and Australia, the model supports the name of Citizens' Juries, a name which while marking the close proximity with the model of Crosby protects against the possibility of prosecutions, given that the term Citizens Juries is an appellation enregistree83. This broadcast, accompanied by hybridization mele channels personal and impersonal. If researchers english encounter Dienel and Crosby has several times, they are not familiar with less than the literature on the subject regardless of eux84. In the third case, the dissemination is done in an indirect manner, the original models playing a role of influence more distant: the local players knowledge of the concept by third parties and to be guided by mixing with other models. This is for example the case of France, where, as we have seen, the main influence has been

80For Spain it is Hans Harms, for Switzerland of Kenan Gungor and then of Hilmar Sturm and for Austria to Detlef Garbe.

81Respectively nucleos of 'Intervencion made, Anwohnergutachten and Burgergutachten.

82Lenaghan (1997, 45) : " In Germany, a similar model, called Planning Cells, provided us with the inspiration to develop citizens' juries. However, in Germany, there is a habit of active citizenship which simply does not exist in the UK. We therefore had to make significant changes in order to make the model fit our circumstances in the UK. ≪

83The reduction of the difference of designation has an apostrophe is the result of a compromise between the IPPR and Ned Crosby. The latter did not want impede the dissemination of the model while having the desire to transmit its standards. This has not necessarily been successful, as we will see.

84But do not seem to know at the time the work of Fishkin.

213

Chapter 4: The Planungszelle and the jury of citizens, two models aleatoriens paradigmatic

Nature of theoretical and academic and or the actors have taken as reference the consensus conference before the mix with a format most inspired of Citizens Juries who has finished by giving the conference of citizen, the citizen workshop and then the jury of citizens. The same is true for the model of the Citizens Assembly adapted to the Netherlands in the form of a Burgerforum kiesstelsel organized without direct assistance from Canadian organizers and according to a different formula because it does not result in final referendum.

214