A new report, Deliberative Integrity: Risks and Responses in Mini-Public Governance, authored by Dr. Lucy J. Parry (University of Canberra) and Professor Nicole Curato (University of Birmingham), delves into the challenges facing deliberative mini-publics (DMPs) and how these processes can maintain deliberative integrity. 

Deliberative mini-publics are innovative forms of citizen engagement where participants are selected through sortition or random selection, tasked to learn and deliberate together on a policy question or a particular issue, to generate recommendations for key decision-makers. 

The research, based on 62 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders across the field, identifies five critical risk areas that threaten the ethics, credibility and effectiveness of mini-publics. It also explores strategies to mitigate these risks and ensure that DMPs remain a robust tool for democratic engagement.

The report is available here. 

The Growing Role of Deliberative Mini-Publics

Deliberative mini-publics are increasingly being used in policymaking across OECD countries, promising to foster informed, inclusive, and meaningful citizen participation. Whether applied to contentious issues such as climate change or assisted dying to policy vacuums such as genome editing or AI regulation, DMPs aim to generate considered recommendations based on careful deliberation among everyday citizens. 

However, as their use expands, so too do concerns about how they are implemented, governed, and integrated into the broader political system.

Identifying Risks to Integrity

The report identifies five key areas where deliberative integrity can be compromised:

1. Economic Pressures. The need to secure funding and sustain operational viability places significant pressure on organisations delivering DMPs. Many service providers, whether commercial or nonprofit, depend on securing government contracts, philanthropic grants, or private funding to continue their work. Respondents in the report noted that they sometimes felt compelled to take on projects with constrained remits, insufficient time for meaningful deliberation, or predetermined outcomes because rejecting these projects could jeopardise their organisation’s financial stability.
2. Control and Constraint by Commissioning Authorities. The study reveals that some commissioning bodies attempt to exert excessive control over mini-publics, from setting narrow remits to restricting the selection of experts and information provided to participants. This undue influence can skew deliberative outcomes, raising questions about the independence of these processes.
3. Orthodoxy of Design: While sortition or stratified random selection is considered a gold standard in recruiting participants in DMPs, the report warns against rigid adherence to standardised designs that fail to account for local contexts, power dynamics, and diverse participant needs. The potential for replicating systemic inequalities within deliberative processes was highlighted as a significant concern.
4. Poor Governance: The lack of clear governance structures, transparency, and accountability mechanisms was identified as a major issue. Decisions around expert selection, agenda-setting, and report drafting are often opaque, leaving room for ethical and procedural concerns.
5. Ambiguous Impact and Political Integration: Even well-executed DMPs often struggle to influence policy or decision-making effectively. The report notes that without a clear follow-up mechanism, participants may feel disillusioned when their recommendations are ignored, reducing public trust in these processes. This is an integrity risk because it undermines the legitimacy of citizen deliberation, discourages future participation, and raises concerns that DMPs are being used as symbolic exercises rather than meaningful democratic tools. If mini-publics fail to make a tangible impact on policymaking, they risk becoming tokenistic, reinforcing public cynicism about democratic engagement rather than strengthening it.

Responses and Recommendations

To address these risks, the report proposes action at three levels based on three levels: within the design of mini-publics, among the deliberative mini-publics community, and in the broader political system. These calls to action are based on practices that respondents have tried or considering to correct some of their perceived risks. 

At the design and implementation level, greater participant involvement in decision-making is key. Ensuring participants have some influence over agenda-setting and expert selection can help counteract undue influence from commissioning bodies. Additionally, providing stronger support for marginalised groups within deliberative spaces can prevent the reinforcement of existing inequalities.

Within the deliberative mini-publics community, a central debate emerges around the balance between standardization and innovation. While some advocate for clearer ethical guidelines and best practices to prevent process manipulation and ensure integrity, others warn against rigid frameworks that could stifle adaptability. There is growing recognition that DMPs must remain context-sensitive, adjusting to local political and social landscapes rather than adhering to one-size-fits-all models. Encouraging greater openness about challenges and failures fosters a culture of continuous learning and improvement, while more engaged research collaborations between academics and practitioners can help refine evaluation methods and provide a stronger empirical foundation for assessing deliberative quality

At the systemic level, embedding DMPs within formal political structures is essential for their legitimacy and long-term impact. Establishing independent oversight bodies can enhance transparency and accountability. Increasing collaboration with civil society can also help to broaden and democratise public engagement, ensuring that deliberative processes remain connected to the communities they aim to serve.

Looking Ahead

The report serves as a call to action for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners in the field of deliberative democracy. By acknowledging and addressing these integrity risks, stakeholders can ensure that DMPs continue to serve as a powerful mechanism for citizen engagement. The authors stress that integrity risks do not render mini-publics ineffective; rather, they highlight the need for continued reflexivity, innovation, and ethical commitment in the field.

For inquiries, please contact Professor Nicole Curato at n.curato@bham.ac.uk.