A few sentences in Tom Baldwin’s new 400-page biography of Keir Starmer caused quite a stir recently. They had little to do with the life of the Labour leader, and more to do with how an incoming Labour government would find solutions to some of the big issues the country faces. Interviewed for the book, Sue Gray, Starmer’s increasingly influential Chief of Staff, was quoted as saying the party should look at “Citizens’ Assemblies” to find answers to some of the seemingly intractable problems facing the country.
Citizens’ Assemblies have been used all over the world, including in the United Kingdom, where Parliament commissioned its first Assembly – on social care – in 2018 and where there are various examples at local level. Their use was perhaps better known in the Republic of Ireland from 2016, where they were used to give the public a greater voice over important, often constitutional, issues. Gray certainly saw this approach as a success, arguing that “once socially conservative Ireland” is now “almost unrecognisable after using such innovations to thrash out answers on previously vexed issues such as abortion and gay marriage”, both of which were legalised in Ireland after the recommendations of a Citizens’ Assembly were backed by public vote. (However, referendums on two further proposals from a subsequent Assembly – to broaden the constitutional definition of ‘family’, so that it is not based solely on marriage, and to amend the language about women’s caring responsibilities in the home – were overwhelmingly rejected earlier this month.) In his 2022 Commission on the UK’s Future, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown also called for the greater use of deliberative and participative processes, and highlighted the use of Citizens’ Assemblies at local level in Newham, East London, which have been used to reflect on various issues, such as how to improve parks and green spaces.
Although there are many variations, at their simplest, Citizens’ Assemblies involve approaching a representative cross-section of the population (perhaps 100 citizens are eventually selected, although thousands of invitations might have to be sent out to get enough positive responses). Members of the Assembly meet regularly (generally without pay for their time) and are provided with support to facilitate their meetings. Citizens are asked to examine a set issue and reflect on the trade-offs that various solutions involve, working to find common ground in their recommendations. The argument is that such Assemblies are more representative and deliberative than other approaches to public policy and, as such, provide better solutions. Depending on the design of the Assembly, recommendations might then require a response from government or be put to the people in a referendum. According to The Times, which first picked up on Gray’s comments, Labour is already “deep in the detail” of planning these reforms.
Why are governments looking at this option now?
For most of the twentieth century, the main political parties in Britain were largely content with the existing model of representative democracy. After Labour broke through in the early twentieth century, it was committed to finding parliamentary representation for working people, but largely accepted the existing Westminster model as the vehicle. After 1945, Attlee’s government introduced radical reforms (including the creation of the welfare state and part-nationalisation of the economy) using the political levers offered by the powerful centralised system based in Westminster and Whitehall. After 1979, Thatcher’s governments were content to roll back much of this post-war consensus using the same tools. Deliberative and participative reforms, of which Citizens’ Assemblies are one example, were not on the agenda of the ruling parties.
Several developments led to a renewed call for greater citizen involvement in the democratic process. First, the radicalism of the Thatcher reforms led to a backlash from those opposed to them, who called for reform to a political system that was allowing fundamental change without the party in power ever having a popular majority. This campaign was part of a wider call for change, from electoral reform to a Bill of Rights, to various steps to involve citizens more in politics – a general ‘decentralisation of power’ that would wrest control from Westminster and Whitehall and bring it closer to the people.
Second, there was increasing scepticism about the ability of the Westminster system of representative democracy to solve the problems we face. The criticisms are manifold: people feel powerless; they are alienated by party politics and the rhetoric and reality of conflict in the House of Commons; the two-party system no longer reflects the socio-economic divides in society; politicians are simply not up to the job; and finally, Westminster simply cannot meet the challenges facing us. The UK Parliament is too small to tackle global problems (from climate change to nuclear proliferation to the ability of multinational companies to move their tax liability around with relative ease) and too big and removed to deal with problems facing people in their local communities. In short, Westminster’s creaking old representative model democracy was not up to the job.
To their supporters, Citizens’ Assemblies offer an exciting means to find solutions to many of these issues. They can better cope with nuance, ambiguity, and multiple options. They are not shackled by party politics, where parliamentarians are in most cases whipped to vote in line with their party, with little regard for the subtleties of an issue and much regard for the short term scoring of party-political points. They can offer solutions to seemingly intractable problems that Parliament can appear unwilling or unable to tackle.
Should we be sceptical?
Not everyone is a fan. Less than 24 hours after Gray’s comments were reported, a backlash began. Luke Akehurst, a member of Labour’s National Executive Committee, described Citizens’ Assemblies as a “stupid idea”. The Party quickly distanced itself from the suggestion, with a spokesperson stating that they were not formal policy. In Baldwin’s biography, Starmer’s reported views were always more equivocal: “They’ve worked in some areas, not in others”, he said. Starmer appears pragmatic about the suggestion.
Some critics offer a principled rejection, arguing that Citizens’ Assemblies abnegate the responsibility of Parliament. As Akehurst said, “We already have elected politicians who are put there by the public to take tough decisions.” This view is common. As Niall Gooch wrote in The Spectator, “the authority of Parliament is watered down in this way, it undermines the simple mechanisms of accountability which are meant to be at the heart of the British constitution” (i.e. that it is Parliament that is sovereign). Despite Gooch’s claim, Citizens’ Assemblies on their own are advisory and hardly undermine Parliament. However, when their recommendations are backed by a wider referendum, parliamentary sovereignty really could be challenged in practice by alternative forms of democratic legitimacy.
Other opponents are more sceptical about the democratic claims advocates of Citizens’ Assemblies make or more cynical about their use. Critics have raised questions about the representative make-up of any Assembly. Thousands of people have to be invited before enough representative members are found. Once you have the final hundred or so, even after sifting to ensure a representative mix on gender, class, age, ethnicity and so on, people who do get involved tend to be those who can afford to be there, in terms of both time and money. To critics, such as Henry Hill, they are “the activist minority”. Cynics have argued that Citizens’ Assemblies are largely a vehicle to ‘rubber-stamp’ decisions that politicians want to make anyway. After all, it is the elite in Westminster who decide which issues are to be discussed by an Assembly. And if they disagree with the proposals, they do not have to back them or take them much further unless there is a prior commitment to do so. As Sam Bidwell has argued, Citizens’ Assemblies simply give “a sheen of legitimacy” to decisions politicians would have taken anyway. (Although the popular rejection of the reforms put forward in the ‘care’ and ‘family’ referendums in Ireland this month – against the advice of the main political parties – clearly show the limits of this strategy.)
Labour, Citizens’ Assemblies and the UK System
Could Citizens’ Assemblies provide a way for an incoming Labour Government to overcome some of the big challenges we face? Any such move at a national level would certainly have its critics, both in the right-wing press and within the Labour Party itself. This does not mean that Assemblies should be rejected out of hand. For them to have any chance of success, however, careful thought needs to be given to their design. First, advocates need to be able to answer the reasonable accusation that an Assembly’s proposals are ‘just the views of a small group of people’, which can safely be ignored. To avoid that claim, the process needs significant support – or ‘buy in’ – from politicians, vested interests and citizens themselves.
Second, the success of an Assembly depends on how it interacts with other democratic processes. Are Westminster politicians simply promising to respond formally to findings, or are they committed to a popular referendum on some or all proposals (as has tended to happen in Ireland before proposals were legislated upon)? The pairing of Citizens’ Assemblies with referendums really does offer an alternative source of democratic legitimacy, which in practice could challenge the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament.
By contrast, the former, more limited commitment, in which government promises some form of formal response to an Assembly’s proposals, keeps the existing model of representative democracy firmly in place. Yet even this approach could help to offer answers to some of the problems we face. Assemblies offer a way of deliberating on difficult issues, partly insulated from party-political point scoring. In an increasingly polarised party-political landscape, where politicians can often focus on the short term, and where solutions to big issues can be delayed for others to deal with, Citizens’ Assemblies do offer a way of reflecting on problems that any new government should confront and of moving the debate on. Those virtues are no bad thing to offer a new government. For a politician like Starmer, faced with challenges that Westminster has traditionally been reluctant to face, they might be one way to start getting things done.
Simon Griffiths.
Simon is a Reader in British Politics at Goldsmiths, University of London where he was, until recently, Head of Department. His work is focused on the relationships between ideologies, party politics and public policy.
The Constitution Society is committed to the promotion of informed debate and is politically impartial. Any views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and not those of The Constitution Society.