Otto-suhr-institute

2. What institutional engineering for the mini-public?

2.1Exceed the weaknesses in based on practices

2.1 .1a democracy of projects?

All of the weaknesses highlighted previously suggested that the mini-public work on the mode of the democracy project, because they are introduced to the gre of circumstances, are top-down and therefore granted. The discussion will focus as well for four days on a problem of garbage but we will leave carefully aside the fact that the problem of garbage is in reality that of the consumer society. We can discuss the labelling of GMOS in food but not the drama of the land grabbing operates by the companies multinationales10. The citizens about has them do not seem be particularly eager to participate a priori, and make a mini-public a legitimate tool is a tightrope has renew perpetually. The fact that the participation is optional gives the drawing a aristocratic color as far as democratic, and we saw earlier that the case it is has a cross section and not a real representative sample. Still less has a body of representatives (formal and substantial) of the poor and the excluded. It has also been seen that the weakness the more recurring, signed that there is more in a logic of project that in a global context, is that of the interface between the mini-public and their environment. This is the stumbling block between representatives elected and drawn and the main fault of the model which prevents the procedural legitimacy to be recognized has its full potential. One has the impression that the danger highlighted by Barber (1984, 263-264) becomes reality:

10This was the case for example when the draft Planungszellen on GMOS in 1995 which focused on the modalities of the introduction and dissemination of GMOS but not on their same principle. On similar cases of manipulation, see Wakeford & al. (2008, 7 et seq. ).

325

Chapter 6: The contours of a policy aleatorienne

" Tea institutions depicted below are inseparable features of one integrated agenda - not a cafeteria menu from which items can be selected at whim aim has dinner menu with a fixed price that must be accepted in full. Historically, the great reform movements have been organized around a series of innovations whose radical character lay in their common vision and force ... In short, the potency of the reforms offered here related almost entirely in their capacity for mutual reenforcement when implemented in concert ... Adopted piecemeal or partially, such innovations will at best only be assimilated into the representative adversary system and used to further privatize, alienate, and disenfranchise citizens. At worst, they may even undermine the safeguards of liberal democracy without achieving any of the benefits of participation. They must be adopted together or not at all. ≪

However, if one takes into account that each mini-public is an ingredient of the " menu " on participatory, then we must look to the best practices in the field and update the quality criteria of the mini-public, in order to strengthen the interface between mini- and maxi-public.

2.1 .2best practices

2.1.2 .1The recruitment and employment of the draw

The draw the more has even to create a balance between rates of participation and representativeness formal seems to be that without quotas on a list of inhabitants. Given that this last is rather an exception than the rule, and the recruitment was from phone lists seems a compromise. The quotas do not make sense that for smaller groups but open a possibility of manipulation on the part of the organizers even if on some topics they could help to anticipate potential conflicts or ensure the representativeness of some disadvantaged groups. Concerning the invitation itself, the most efficient system is one of the letter of invitation coupled has a visit at home as in the Planungszellen oldest. An exemplary practice more recent is that of the Deliberative Poll danish on the Euro which combined a television spot has a telephone call, a sending of documentation and a telephone callback for the persons contacted by letter (Andersen & Hansen 2007). Concerning the stakeholders , it must arrive has achieve what Hendriks named the " zone of tension productive ", that is to say that in which the subject acquires a media visibility important and in which the stakeholders feel forced to participate not to miss the opportunity of participation (Hendriks 2004, 318-323).

326

2. What institutional engineering for the mini-public?

2.1.2 .2The opening theme and the issue of the agenda

We saw earlier that the issue of the mandate and of the mastery of the agenda are clear limits on the model of mini-public. The most promising practices seem to be emerging when process has consecutive levels as in some projects in german Planungszellen : one or several groups secure the subjects discuss or offer models of planning which are then evaluated by a later series of Planungszellen (Dienel & al. 1984). Has a more modest level, the practices observed in Poitiers consisting a leave of thematic blocks free that the participants can fill and has split the deliberation in several sessions seem positive. This is also the case during processes of long-term as in the citizens' assemblies during which the participants have more room to maneuver. In a any other logic, it seems that the existence of mini-public ascendants, i.e. originating in the civil society, can be a powerful factor in placing on the public agenda of topics until then consensual in the circles politico-administrative (Wakeford & al. 2008). The Citizens' Jury on nanotechnologies launched by Greenpeace in the United Kingdom is of the people and it will be important to see how it can contribute to the definition of quality criteria for mini-public.

2.1.2 .3The conditions for the proper deliberation

If all the mini-public font office of good practice in the field, some micro-arrangements seem particularly effective. In the first place the fact of alternate modes of decision according to a cycle debate, dialog and aggregation, such as practice in the Planungszellen and juries citizens, is one way to increase the interactions among participants on differentiated modes in which everyone has a chance to participate. In this alternation, it seems important to choose carefully the mode of decision that the citizens can adopt: the forced consensus the deliberation but short the danger to eliminate certain opinions, whereas the vote makes emerge the priorities but with a legitimacy more low (Gronlund & al. 2010, 103). In the second place, the fact of anchoring the forums in a local dimension, even when transnational processes, is a guarantee of quality. As well during the project on the future of rural areas in Europe, the combination between the regional panels formulating proposals for their government and a panel of eu synthesis for the level of the Union, seems particularly bearer (Guiheneuf 2008).

327

Chapter 6: The contours of a policy aleatorienne

2.1.2 .4The creation of legitimacy

The practice the more effective in this field is that of the citizens assembly leading to a referendum. But all the practices that involve reciprocal commitments between participants and agents, as well as all measures which are intended to create transparency and publicity are also central. The fact for example to enable the participants to return to other citizens during the sessions of the mini-public - that is still the case of citizens' assemblies or of certain conferences of French citizens - creates a logic of reflection among the representatives and citizens in the public sphere. The experience of Aix-la-Chapelle also tends to show that the employment of a mini-public to get out of a blockage of the politicking seems to have a legitimizing effect important.

2.2Toward the criteria of quality renewed

By relying on the results of the implementation context, of the review of weaknesses and best practices, it is possible to supplement the criteria of quality of the mini-public present in the literature on the subject. We will rely mainly on the work of Dienel (1978), Fiorino (1989), Renn & al. (1995), Carson (2006), Smith (2009a), Manin (2011), Mansbridge & al. (2011) and Sturm (2011). In total, we identified twenty criteria divided into four groups (figure 61, p. 329). For most of them you can distinguish between a minimum quality (" this below of what we should not go "), a quality standard (" what is most often done ") and a desired quality (" best practice or better yet "). Sometimes we must simply present the criterion without possibility of assessing how the set at best, especially because it is still the result of discussions between practitioners and within the scientific community.

328

2. What institutional engineering for the mini-public?

Illustration 61: Criteria of qualities for the mini-public.

2.2 .1Inclusion

The inclusion criterion is based on the idea of political equality and means that the procedure is accessible to a maximum of citizens and of interests formed and that they can be exprimer11.

2.2.1 .1The representativeness

The draw of the participants

The draw is, it has largely had the opportunity to see in this work, the heart of the procedural mini-public. It allows you to include participants non-professionals of the policy, to achieve a satisfactory representativeness of the population and to promote the emergence of a group of citizens' representatives. A minima - but it is also the standard quality - it should be on the basis of quotas and the group of citizens should have at least twenty members, about thirty to maximum. Beyond the limit it would be good to form several groups or to work in sub-groups. This practice, if it is far from being the norm, is a foster especially if it is associated with a drawing without quota. In this case, a

11Smith (2009a, 12) : " Inclusiveness turns our attention to the way in which political equality is realized" in at least two aspects of participation: presence and voice. ≪

329

Chapter 6: The contours of a policy aleatorienne

Group of 400 has 500 people divided into sub-groups seems the best solution. In the ideal, the draw would be without quota on lists of inhabitants.

The invitation of stakeholders and elected representatives

It has been seen that the legitimacy of the tools type mini-public is based in large part on their integration in the traditional policy and that the inclusion of stakeholders is a central factor in the deliberative quality and of the impact of mini-public. In order to reach the area of tension productive able to motivate the stakeholders but also for the sake of inclusion, it is important to allow them to provide information to the participants. The practice also wants that they can play a role in the preparation of the program in order to ensure the transparency of the latter. Ideally, the participants should also have the possibility to invite speakers, experts or resource persons, during the process to satisfy their own need for information. Concerning the politicians, the minimum is their inclusion in the preparation of the forum. In practice, they are also invited to submit their position during the debates. The issue of the invitation of the extremist parties remains ouverte12.

2.2.1 .2The offer of a role interesting

The draw and the invitation of stakeholders are essential tools but not sufficient to achieve a sufficient inclusion. We have seen in the previous chapter, and in the comparative study that motivate the citizens to take part in mini-public will not of itself and three elements must therefore be the subject of a great deal of attention.

Invitation and mandate

At a minimum, the participants should be invited in writing by an elected representative with a legitimacy of establishment. The mandate should be formulated in a broad manner in order to interest a maximum of citizens during the invitation since it is the most critical time of the decision to participate or not. The standard seems rather be that of a invitation unnecessarily12If

One may want to reject the involvement of extremist parties for reasons of democratic ideology, the practice would show they probably are not in capacity to provide the arguments at the level of the debate, especially after the citizens have received an important information on the subject. Their inclusion would have then rather the effect of the discredit in their cutting the grass of the criticism under the foot. 330

2. What institutional engineering for the mini-public?

Picnic which gives low returns and run the risk of biasing of the departure the representativeness of the sample. The solution the more desirable would be to pair call and letter on the basis of a broad mandate after having launched a public awareness campaign in the local media.

Retribution of participants

The remuneration of the participants is a criterion of quality is the guarantor for the citoyensde the importance and the seriousness of the approach. This contribution also allows reducing some biases of representativeness. A compensation indexed on the minimum wage or the compensation of elected representatives, which is not yet the standard, should therefore be the norm. In addition, it would be desirable to introduce compensation for loss of wages in order to stimulate the participation of citizens engaged in a liberal profession.

The release of the obligations

A fundamental factor in the participation for many citizens is the opportunity to free themselves for the duration of the mini-public. In the direction of a better inclusion, recognition by the institution authorised representative of the participation as a vocational training or civic, is a minimum of the same that the disposal of replacement workers and childminders. The discussion is deep to know if the mandatory participation would be an advanced (institutionalization) or a decrease (domestication of the instrument).

2.2 .2Deliberation

The mini-public are the forums batis on the ideal of a good deliberation whose quality can be translated into four criteria: the debate, the discussion, the production of results and the question of the methods.

331

Chapter 6: The contours of a policy aleatorienne

2.2.2 .1The debate

The debate as time develop an important agonistic of presentation of information is fundamental to make emerge the points of disagreement on a issue.13. A debate of quality assumes that the participants are a minima faced a variety of information and the best contradictory. It is not necessary that such information be transmitted by natural persons, textual materials or audiovisual are equally legitimate.

2.2.2 .2The dialog

Has the inverse of the debate, the dialog allows you to create the common sense, to co-construct. That is why the mini-public should as a minimum include the work in small groups in which the citizens bring their expertise to use and professional. Most of the experiences already meet that criterion. Ideally, the dialog is also a time for creativity and the one during which each can take the floor without that the conventional hierarchies of participation is not able to prevent. It is necessary and desirable, but non-standard, that a part of this work is done in small working groups regularly changing and comprising no more than five people.

2.2.2 .3The duration and the production of results

The mini-public are employed for the purpose of producing accurate results in accordance with their mandate, which implies certain standards very widely shared and implemented. It must particularly ensure that citizens will have an opportunity to aggregate their personal opinions and group in the form of recommendations usable by the authority representative. The discussion is on the other hand deep on the duration necessary has such a process: two days, four, one month, more? If the mandate chosen is an essential factor in the time required, it can be argued that for reasons of group dynamics and deliberative, it is imperative that you do not drop below two days. So the participants can learn has to know and the process of joint production can actually be exploited.

2.2.2 .4The methods of deliberation

In order to make happen the debate and discussion as well as the production of results, the mini-public should respect certain methodological standards in their midst, to whom we are

13On this precise point see ADELS) project (2009, 82).

332

2. What institutional engineering for the mini-public?

Could achieve by techniques of animation recognized, whether it is for the establishment of an open space, of a photographic work, of a role-playing game of votes, etc. It is desirable that these methods are used in order to adapt to the goals of the deliberation (phase of creativity, planning, reflection, construction of empathy, etc).

2.2 .3Relevance

The mini-public must make sense beyond the deliberative bubble that was developing in her womb and generate an interface with the traditional policy and society in general. It has been seen that this link between the model and its environment is its main weakness and it is therefore particularly interested has these criteria that can decline in three categories: effectiveness, integration and efficiency.

2.2.3 .1Effectiveness

Material Efficiency

From a material point of view it is necessary that either produces a document summarising the results of the mini-public and that the latter be handed over to the authority having mandated the project. In the field of the ideal - but this is still rare - this last should respond to the recommendations made by the citizens, i.e. put in place a process of follow-up. The authority should also carry out the suggestions of the participants to the extent that these are accepted, which is already the practice but could be largely improved.

The effectiveness ideelle

From one point of view wildly unrealistic, the mini-public should have a media impact important and stimulating public debate in order to strengthen their transparency. Such a dissemination is also the condition of a accountability more complements and strengthens the democratic legitimacy of the process. The common practice is quite diverse and the discussion is ongoing on how to achieve a media coverage and therefore a maximum efficiency in this area. In a more diffuse, a mini-public of quality should offer an opportunity for empowerment for citizens the wishing. This criterion of quality is discussed and some practitioners domi333

Chapter 6: The contours of a policy aleatorienne

Consider for example that the empowerment is in reality the opposite of a quality criterion because it means that the citizens are taken out of their role of planners for temporary return to that of professionals of the policy. It may on the other hand mean that the mini-public has been a success in the creation of a stronger democracy based on more active citizens. Taking this assumption as a basis, a mini-public should then a minima allow participants to acquire technical skills and policies and to the better to give them the means and the inclination to pursue their activity of citizen after the forum.

2.2.3 .2Integration

A criterion of quality important for the mini-public is their possible integration in the political system in order to increase their effectiveness and legitimacy.

A predefined mandate

It must be first of all for this that they have a predefined mandate. This does not mean that the latter must be closed, or suggest the results, nor even that we cannot conceive a mini-public having precisely as mandate to identify issues on which other mini-public could work, which sum any would be desirable. It does mean, however, that the process must be directed toward the production of results. If the purpose of the participation is not the former, then it is better use another model. On the other hand, it is desirable that the participants have a margin for maneuver on the concrete issues that their are raised, especially in the sub-groups. It has particularly been able see a Poitiers that this possibility is a sign of quality demonstrating a procedure reflexive.

The incorporation in the existing processes

Beyond the mandate, it must be that the mini-public fit into the existing processes of decision-making, without what they run the risk of being left without impact. The fact that they are integrated does not guarantee they will have significant effects, but increases the probability of such an outcome. It is also desirable that the mini-public are incorporated in a string of the participation in order to concentrate on their forces (production of results, information, deliberation) and compensate for their weaknesses (few participants, little of 334

2. What institutional engineering for the mini-public?

Decision-making power). The practice in this area is still in its infancy but encouraging as the show certain practices. The criterion of incorporation fact however the object of important discussions whose first rotates around the mini-public ascendants, i.e. doors by civil society, sometimes in opposition to power in place to create a against legitimacy. Such experiences are effective in terms of stimulating public discussion but run the risk of being ignored by the political-administrative, or even to be combated by lui14. They also call into question the idea of extra procedure partisan and the criteria for inclusion and deliberation may be sacrificed at the price of a politicization greater. The minimum qualitative in this area would be to distinguish between two variations of the model mini-public - ascending and descending - each fulfilling a well-defined role. The second question under discussion concerned the compulsory employment of the process in some projects, as is the case for example of the procedures of the public debate. If such a criterion could lead to a remedy more massive in the model, it may trigger jobs counter-productive. This is the issue of meta-matching.

The meta-matching

The mini-public should be before any employees in the situations in which they are evidence of a maximum efficiency. As a minimum it should be that the organization team and the trustee should be a condition of places of process already employed and the constellation of actors in the presence as well as the subject, which is a treat. Such an analysis may show that it is not necessary to put in place a mini-public of a day with 500 participants to discuss the renovation of an urban district in mutation, but that it would be better to put 100 people during 5 days by pairing this process with a series of round tables and public information meetings before, during and after the mini-public, even with a conference of the future. The practice in this area seems to be quite satisfactory, although the promoters of the models have sometimes trend has ignore this issue in order to propose at any price a single model in every case, which in the end may prove to be counter-productive. The meta-matching is also the opportunity to assess the need for support and/or to organize a mini-public ascendant in the case where the public authorities seem to ignore a problem.

14See for example the case presented by Kurungati & al. (2008).

335

Chapter 6: The contours of a policy aleatorienne

2.2.3 .3Efficiency

The efficiency of the mini-public concerns mainly the issue of control of costs. The standard is dictated by the weakness of the means available to strengthen public participation in comparison with other sectors of social activity. It remains that the mini-public should include certain practices. For example organize two parallel forums starting with a one-hour offset, making it possible, two working groups for a single place, a single series of speakers, a single coordinating team in place, a single recruitment procedure, etc. The employment of new technologies of communication is becoming a standard allowing the aggregation process quick and relatively inexpensive to the unit. But it is not desirable to cut back on other expenditures because it puts in danger of other criteria. Thus radically restrict the number of participants or not paying, disqualified the process and if it becomes less expensive, it cannot yet more deserve the name of mini-public. The process is not expensive but it has a cost related to the holding of the standards.

2.2 .4Equity

This is to ensure that the process meets a certain procedural requirements has same to make a democratic object and difficult to manipulate.

2.2.4 .1career coaching

A large part of the quality of the mini-public relies on the team responsible for the organizing and the animate. This team should be independent of the authority which mandated the mini-public as well as all of the stakeholders. It must be composed of professionals of the animation. It is both the minimum and the standard which guarantee in large part that the inclusion and deliberation are of good quality. The professional coaching can also provide a scientific assessment of the process, an approach which is fairly widespread but non-standard. If the means of achieving such an assessment is possible, it is desirable.

2.2.4 .2transparency and the financing

Transparency is a fundamental criterion which comes first in the form of the publication of the report citizen emerged from the deliberations. The latter should as a minimum contain a 336

2. What institutional engineering for the mini-public?

Number of information on the participants, the course of the procedure, the stakeholders, the organizers and well on the outcome of the deliberations. If the animation team and organization is responsible for drafting the report, it would be necessary that it be submitted to the corrections of participants. The transparency also requires an official ceremony for the presentation which sealed the process and by which the citizens can get out of their role of representatives once the work accomplished. It would be desirable that the report is available online, which is the usual practice. Transparency is also the product of a work of communication of quality. We had the opportunity to see that the media coverage of these mini-public is a major test of their effectiveness and their legitimacy. In order to achieve a maximum impact it is desirable that the communication be a post has fledged the conduct of a mini-public. This practice is not yet standard. A mini-public of quality costing around 1200 euros per participant for four days of deliberation, all inclusive. Thus arises the question of financing. The minimum qualitative resides in a partly by public funds. This is the best way to deprive them of the accusations of manipulation of the procedure by individual interests and this represents the current standard. It would be desirable that the money came from a specific budget has the participation and is less and less from the research (funding which minimizes the political effectiveness). If the mini-public is ascendant, it is funded by private funds which it must publish the source.

2.2.4 .3reflexivity and the sustainability

A mini-public must be a reflexive instance it is-a-say open has the critical and seeking a constant improvement. The participants should be able to express their views on the procedure and have the opportunity to evaluate the approach, which must be documented in the report citizen, which is the practice standard15. In a broader perspective, the discussion is underway to determine whether the mini-public should make evidence of reflexivity in the context of the meta-matching, which corresponds concretely has the question of ethics. The fact to organize a process concerning the choice of a location of a nuclear plant or a plant of armament mine he the democratic quality or ecological process? Or is it on the contrary the only possibility of introducing a minimum of democracy in questions usually closed to such concerns? Accept to accompany forums quar15On

The concept of reflexivity in report with the drawing, see Buchstein (2000, 43). In the context of mini-public see Hendriks (2004, 230).

337

Chapter 6: The contours of a policy aleatorienne

Thy, as has been the case for some of the mini-public on GMOS, does it not the whole of the approach in danger? If yes, how do we avoid that to happen? The call has the ethics is it sufficient? These questions arise with more force still in the mini-public ascendants. Finally, there arises a discussion on the need to make mini-public procedures consistent with the objectives of sustainable development. If this is already the case in part (especially from a social and political point of view), the question arises: is it desirable to take into account the objectives of reduction of greenhouse gases or of sustainable consumption in the conduct of the mini-public?

2.3The open questions

The description of the quality criteria as well as the whole of the empirical analysis have left a number of outstanding issues that we will present here by limiting itself to those likely to find an answer by means of empirical research. Firstly concerning the representation. The most important question, the more burning hot, and whose response would be most suitable to provide innovative results in this area, is that of the mandatory participation: what would happen if a mini-public was recruited on the basis of a draw compulsory as in the case of a jury judicial? Who would take the risk of not coming? We would be still in the presence of a cross section ? And the participants would they be so motivated at work? For less ambitious way, a second open question is that of the correlation between the method of recruitment and its outcome in terms of the representativeness of the participants in order to put in before the variables which play the most important role in the acceptance has an invitation: is it the sum of money? The formulation of the topic? Of the form of the invitation? The method of drawing? A third series of questions is articulated around the symbolic dimension of the representation. If it has been able to give a few elements of response in chapter 5, it seems interesting to look at it again with quantitative studies more targeted on the feeling of the population on the activity of " sorpresentant " on and on the sense of the participants.

We have seen repeatedly that deliberation is the best-known aspect and the more research of mini-public. It remains that there are three questions. In the first place of the reintroduction of the develop an important agonistic in the model. Such a maneuver does it help crystallize the debate in opening? Or is it better to separate the spheres by pressing 338

2. What institutional engineering for the mini-public?

Their articulation: develop an important agonistic outside the mini-public, co-operative in inside it? In the second place, that of the inclusion of parties and extremist positions during the information phase: could it be beneficial? What would be the possible contribution of legitimacy? And the dangers involved? In the third place, the question of the possible influence of facilitators is often asked and elucidated by interviews with the presenters themselves as well as by that of the assessment provided by the participants. However, it would be interesting to test, during a mini-public with two parallel groups, the capacity for a moderator " malicious about ≪ it is-a-say voluntarily manipulator, to direct the debate. Such a device would probably be very interesting to observe but its implementation poses significant problems.

We discussed the subject of the legitimacy of the mini-public and many beginnings of response could not be formulated. However, specific research could further clarify the situation by means of correlation tests between the perceived legitimacy of the experimentation and the criteria such as the topic, the duration of deliberation or the type of results. It could be based on the approach of Cutler & al. (2008). Finally, it has been seen that the mini-public are not always a place of empowerment and that they do not affect all citizens permanently. An important question is therefore that of the correlation between empowerment and variables such as the topic, the duration, the intensity deliberative or the implementation of recommendations.