Citizen council

Amor Mundi
How should we live together and who gets to decide this?

On Friday the 7th of Juli, the news spread. I was sitting at the pub when a visitor shouted with a bouncing energy, “The cabinet just fell!”, whereafter he raised his finger for a new round of drinks. I felt a wave of enthusiastic excitement well up. Maybe it was the abruptness, the grandeur, or the atmosphere in the pub, but my companion reacted just alike and as the visitor spread the news, a real celebratory sentiment arose. This would mean the provisional end of Rutte and people talked about the hope for something ‘radically different’. 

But what was it about? How did the cabinet fall? About a disagreement. A tiny disposition and at the same time an incredibly sensitive one: whether or not to grant family reunification for status holders (refugees with a residence permit). Tiny, because mind you, this involved 2% of the total migration flow. And boom, the government falls. In other words, a matter of principle, although it is difficult to say whether a party is obstructing because of its ideology, or because of political considerations such as the upcoming elections or the smothering fear of losing its supporters. Despite the tragedy, it is a wonderful example of a political deadlock, the stalling of policy due to mutually exclusive (party) political interests. This time with the ultimate result: the fall of the government. A contract of political impasse for an indefinite period of time. “Professionals from all kinds of sectors warn after the fall of the government: 'Not again a year of stagnation,'” was the headline of the NRC on Wednesday the 12th of July.

The solution to such a deadlock is, unfortunately, to me no exciting, radical or new idea. Rosa Luxemburg suggested it already more than a century ago with the term 'council democracy' and Hannah Arendt was a big fan, writes Joke Hermsen in her book about the two philosophers and political thinkers Het Tij Keren (2019). I am talking about what is known in technical terms as 'deliberative' democracy, the deliberation of citizens in political decision-making. This can be done in different ways, but the form that I want to stress is the citizens’ council. Citizens' councils are, as someone recently told me, “not that sexy”. But it is precisely in their inertness, in the lack of flashing catch phrases with magic potion, aka in its sexlessness, where the power of this idea lies. Citizens’ councils are not about convincing others; they are slow processes in which people are given time to learn and discuss (this is why they are so distinct from referenda) and the outcomes are lists of well-considered recommendations, of which none will be a magic potion. Daresay these are advices that, when implemented in policy,  can pull us out of political impasses and create what Hannah Arendt calls amor mundi: a shared love and responsibility for the world.

As the fall of the cabinet illustrates, our democracy is unable to effectively tackle the problems of our contemporary society.

Why is this important? As the fall of the cabinet illustrates, our democracy is unable to effectively tackle the problems of our contemporary society, as also stated by David van Reybrouck, historian and author of the book Against Elections (2013). And this is not the only example. In fact, almost all of The Hague’s crisis files involve suchlike politically charged disagreements that they cause policy to freeze. Think about the far too slow developments that surround climate policy, the nitrogen crisis, housing crises and gas extraction in Groningen. Already since 1950 we know about the disastrous effects of global and right now, more than 70 years later, things are still as desolate as they were back then. Due to amongst others party politics, national and international lobbies and the 4-year short-term vision, developing adequate policy in these areas has simply not been accomplished. In addition, Brexit, the rise of populism with figures like Trump and Bolsonaro and the spread of fake news have taught us that the political system is certainly unable to cope with the unprecedented developments and influence of social media. Political gains are made through polarization and gradually citizens stand increasingly opposed to each other.

Yet, we have become so used to this system that we hardly wonder how it could be done differently. This habituation does not come from satisfaction. On the contrary, we have become accustomed to the dissatisfaction and distrust that we feel towards our ‘parliament’ and are pleasantly surprised when a cabinet falls (for which the majority of the population voted after all). According to author and activist Brett Hennig these are the aftermaths of Fukuyama's End of History: the idea that we found the answer to the question of how we should live together in the liberal democracy. Yet Hannah Arendt already said at the end of the twentieth century that Western democracy has a tendency to grow into an administrative oligarchy of representatives, with only every few years the opportunity for citizens to express their opinion on a ballot paper, writes Hermsen. And do not forget, Van Reybrouck reminds us, that party politics was created as a means to take power from the citizenry and to transfer it to an elite. Deliberative democracy, and specifically a form of citizen deliberation, as agreed on by all authors mentioned here, is an adequate and necessary way to slightly reclaim decision-making power for the collective. Where decision-making power, you could say, becomes collective ownership. As such, this article is about politics, but is also its antithesis.

The principle of a citizens’ council is fairly simple. A group of citizens is brought together, selected on the basis of demographic characteristics such as age, gender, place of residence or education level, that together represent a reflection of society. This can be done at national level, but also locally, such as the citizens’ council on the New Year's Eve in Zeist. Depending on the theme, new selection variables can be added. For example, it is recommended to ask in advance about citizens' attitudes towards climate change in order to prevent the climate citizen council from consisting only of climate activists with which it would lose its credibility. Subsequently, this group is subjected to an information stream from experts on the subject – selected by an independent committee – and can also nominate experts themselves. This gives everyone the opportunity to learn and to be heard. John Long, participant in the Irish consultation on abortion legislation, said the following about this phase:

“It took place over a period of 5 months, 5 weekends, probably, of 15 or 20 hours of sessions, papers, debate, and then dozens and dozens of hours of research and reading and analysis. So, I would say we probably put a total time of a couple of 100 hours into it. Which is probably more than a parliamentary party committee would have put into it. So, we’re probably the best-informed amateurs in the country on this topic at the moment” – John Long in When Citizens Assemble.

The big advantage: in the deliberations, this group – unlike politicians - is not hindered by electoral or party political interests.

After this learning phase comes deliberation: together the group consults and makes a list of recommendations that it presents to politicians. The big advantage: in the deliberations, this group – unlike politicians - is not hindered by electoral or party political interests. No one is there to convince anyone else and although these conversations are sometimes difficult, people listen to each other, as participants confirm over and over again. This environment not only ensures broadly supported solutions. It also affects participants themselves, such as Finbarr O'Brien, an old postal worker and homophobe from the small southern Irish village of Macroon (anti-gay marriage), and Chris Lyons, an eccentric student, gay and full of piercings from Cork (activist for equal rights of the queer community) writes Bastian Berber in the award-winning article 'The Other Guy and Me'. As true opposites, the two represented each other's fears and would never meet in their everyday lives.

During the citizens’ council on the legalization of same-sex marriage, however, they accidentally joined each other at the table and - to their great surprise - they experienced a similarity that drew them towards each other. After each meeting they would linger at the bar and start sharing things with each other. They became friends. Months later, they stood up for each other. Radical opinions, David van Reybrouck states in an interview about his book, are often formed when people do not feel heard. A citizens' council, on the other hand, is eminently the place where people are given a voice and space; where, instead of being in opposition, they can stand next to each other.

But politicians also have a great responsibility. The Irish government has put its trust with these “best informed amateurs in the country” to give advice on two of the country's most controversial subjects: same-sex marriage and abortion laws. Topics that had been in a political deadlock since years and which politicians no longer dared to touch. In both cases, they managed to break a political impasse via the citizens' councils in a manner that was societally supported: the rest of the society could agree to the citizens’ formulated proposals through referenda. The result: in 2015, gay couples were able to give each other the yes-word and in 2018, for the first time, women in Ireland could legally obtain abortion. The special thing about citizens’ councils is that they precisely work very well for extremely politically charged, seemingly unsolvable problems. A many-headed monster requires a many-headed solution, says Eva Rovers in her book about citizens’ councils Now it's up to us (2022).

Just before the fall of the cabinet, our government gave the green light for a national citizens' council on climate, which is joyful news for the advocates of deliberative democracy amongst us. However, its interpretation raises questions. Also Rovers fears that this interpretation shows that politicians do not trust citizens because of 'the question' that they ask the deliberation and the lack of a clear mandate (agreements about what will be done with the recommendations). Asha ten Broeke, science journalist for de Volkskrant, puts it even more sharply. Where the French convention citoyenne pour le climat embarked on a statement that matters: how can we reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40 percent by 2030, in a spirit of social justice? “Can Dutch citizens only venture to ask themselves a kind of better-environment-starts-with-yourself question: 'How can we as the Netherlands eat, use things and travel in a way that is better for the environment?'” wrote Ten Broeke on July 6 in de Volkskrant. She added that CDA member Bottenbal had the opinion “that it is a good thing that the citizens' council would only concern itself with its own 'lifeworld', because otherwise a lot of time and expertise would be needed.”

In other words, 'ordinary citizens' are not capable of that. While Rovers and Jelmer Mommers state in the Correspondent that “Whether it concerns the storage of nuclear waste (Australia), democratic innovation (Germany), the revision of the electoral system (The Netherlands), or climate policy (Ireland, the United Kingdom and France); citizens appear to be very capable of making adequate and well-considered recommendations.” Their statement is supported by more than 30 years of academic research on deliberative democracy and also the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) advocates for the institutionalization of deliberative processes and emphasizes in its report that such processes are especially suitable for solving 'value-driven dilemmas', 'complex problems', and 'long-term issues'. The core of a citizens' council is that, according to me, you involve citizens in political decision-making on broad social issues. Not just letting them merely philosophize about how they can improve their own living environment. Only then does politics become collective ownership. Only then, if politics is the object of our attention and involvement, will amor mundi, the shared love and responsibility for the world, arise – as also ten Broeke confirms. Moreover, this idea that citizens should care about civic affairs and politicians about politics perpetuates the division that causes distrust, misunderstanding and a (justifiable) feeling of 'not being heard'. In such a case there is no exchange between citizens and politicians, nor between citizens themselves in which trust can be regained. And do not forget that if we want to tackle the greatest monster of all: the climate crisis, we need to feel a shared responsibility for it as a community.

How do we achieve that? In Ostbelgien, partly thanks to the efforts of Van Reybrouck and his G1000 (a platform for democratic innovation), they were the first to follow Rosa Luxemburg's advice and have introduced an institutionalized form of citizens’ councils. You can imagine it as a third chamber in which drawn citizens can advise politicians on three themes every eighteen months. There are always measures that are hurtful, but they are a lot easier to swallow if you have something to say about them, says Van Reybrouck. In such a process you observe how people change from voters to citizens. In other words, you see amor mundi arising. How should we live together? Arendt and Luxembourg already told us a long time ago. Con amor. Amor Mundi. How can we achieve that? By making politics collective ownership. Only then will we feel the shared responsibility to extinguish the burning world and will the manner in which we do this be socially supported.

If you want to know more about the specific steps of a citizens' council, you can also visit the Bureau Citizens' Council website, or read this article from the Correspondent. If you want to know more about the experiences of participants, I recommend watching the short (15 min) documentary 'When Citizens Assemble' or reading the article about Chris and Finbarr 'The Other Guy and Me'. This Pakhuis de Zwijger file folder also contains many articles and podcasts about European citizens' councils and all citizens' councils worldwide are kept up to date on this website. On www.mijnburgerberaad.nl an overview of developments in the Netherlands. 

Other sources:

Mentioned books
Het Tij Keren – Joke Hermsen
Against Elections – David van Reybrouck
Nu is het aan ons – Eva Rovers

Interview David van Reybrouck - Spotify
Column Asha Ten Broeke - Volkskrant
Burgberaad Zeist - Volkskrant
OECD Rapport - OECD website
Artikel NRC - NRC

Zie ook
Brett Henig Ted - TED