Conditions of Citizen Participation in Assembly Democracy: Experimental Evidence (Pre-Recorded)

• In Event: Citizen Participation and Partnership in Urban Politics

Abstract

Topic and aim: Democratic systems today build on theories, norms and practices that have emerged with a first great transformation of democracy from classical Greek-style citizen assemblies to representative institutions. While some forms of assembly democracy persisted– such as the new England town meetings, as well as the Landsgemeinde or the municipal assemblies in Switzerland – contemporary democracy is predominantly mass democracy, where citizen participation is organized as aggregation of individual votes in elections or referendums. However, as new instances of citizen participation beyond aggregative democracy have proliferated in the last three decades, we may be witnessing a second transformation of our democracies (Warren, 2003). Theorized as “deliberative democracy” (see Bächtiger et al., 2018), “democratic innovations” (Geissel & Newton, 2012; Smith, 2009), or “participatory governance” (Fung, 2015), these new instances of citizen participation emphasise direct involvement in deliberation and decision-making. In other words: assembly democracy is on the rise again and, thus, the study of citizen participation in democratic assemblies is increasingly relevant. This paper focuses on the factors that motivate citizen participation in assembly democracy. Building on the resource model of political participation (Verba et al., 1995), we are not only interested in individual-level determinants related to resources and political interest, but place a particular emphasis on the investigation of the role of contextual aspects of mobilization that attract citizens to democratic assemblies.
Data and method: We analyse individual-level and experimental data collected in a representative survey of 2710 respondents living in three Swiss municipalities where citizen assemblies are regularly held. In a choice experiment, respondents were asked about the likeliness to participate in citizen assemblies with variable attributes. Conjoint analysis (Hainmueller et al., 2014) was used to calculate average marginal component effects of different citizen assembly attributes on respondents likeliness to participate in the assembly.
Results: Besides expected effects of individual predispositions on citizens’ likeliness of participation, we find significant effects of assembly attributes. On the one hand, citizen’s intention to participate in an assembly is stronger when assemblies are conventiently scheduled and organised. Interestingly, give-aways for assembly participation decrease (rather than increase) citizens’ intention to participate. On the other hand, the intention to participate in an assembly is strongly influenced by the subject on the decision-agenda: tax rises, revisions of the municipal constitution, as well as zoning decisions and financial expenditures are particularly attractive to citizens. Moreover, citizens’ intention to participate in an assembly is stronger when they are accompanied by friends or family. Finally, the expected atmosphere plays a role: when an assembly is characterized by no or only a weak debate, citizens are less likely to participate. While the occurrence of hefty disputes in the assembly increases citizens’ intention to participate, a lively but civilized debate drives up participation intention the most.
Conclusion: Our study provides new evidence about the conditions that make assembly democracy attractive to citizens. It thereby contributes to the scientific debate on political participation in assembly democracy: it is not the quest for renewal of community ties (Mansbridge, 1983 ) nor the absence of conflicts (Mutz, 2006), but the expectation of a meaningful political debate that motivates citizens to participate in democratic assemblies.

References:
Bächtiger, A., Dryzek, J. S., Mansbridge, J., & Warren, M. E. (Eds.). (2018). The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy: Oxford University Press.
Fung, A. (2015). Putting the public back into governance: the challenges of citizen participation in the future. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 513-522.
Geissel, B., & Newton, K. (Eds.). (2012). Evaluating democratic innovations: curing the democratic malaise? London: Routledge.
Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1-30.
Mansbridge, J. (1983 ). Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations. Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality. Cambridge (Ma): Harvard University Press.
Warren, M. E. (2003). A second transformation of democracy. In B. E. Cain, R. J. Dalton, & S. E. Scarrow (Eds.), Democracy Transformed? Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies (pp. 223-249). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Authors

• Daniel Kuebler

• Philippe Etienne Rochat, Liechtenstein-Institut