Fair Enough? Mini-Public Composition and Outcome Acceptance from the Maxi Public

 

Abstract

One hope associated with the spread of deliberative mini-publics in established democracies is that they could increase acceptance of policies because of their inclusive and diverse composition. Yet, participants are not representative of the broader public in all characteristics. They tend to be more engaged with politics or debated policy issues than the average population. Building on a Climate Citizens’ Assembly commissioned by the Luxembourg government in 2022 (Klima Biergerrot-KBR), this study examines how the maxi public reacts when informed about the profile of mini-public participants. Via a survey experiment, we found that descriptive representation and similarity matter to accept the outcomes, but not universally. It depends on respondents’ attitudes about mini-publics prior to the experiment and situations of cognitive dissonance. Indeed, when people initially neutral or opposed to mini-publics (‘participatory skeptics’) learn that the process is fairly representing (their in-) groups, they increase their willingness to accept the outcomes, stressing improvement in the perceived legitimacy. By contrast, the lack of social inclusion and political diversity is an issue to keep the ‘participatory enthusiasts’ on board, stressing that they also pay attention (and perhaps even more) to how and which groups of citizens are represented within a mini-public. Our message is that deliberative mini-publics need to address more thoroughly how they can best meet their normative assumptions of participatory equality and procedural fairness; otherwise, they may not help to foster political legitimacy.