Is Ireland's Citizens' Assembly the Solution to the West's Culture Wars?
This intriguing experiment in deliberative democracy liberalized abortion in a Catholic country without deepening polarization
Dear Readers:
2024 may be known as the "year of elections," but we would be wise to remember that democracy is much more than mechanisms of voting and policymaking. It should also be regarded as a system of institutions that cultivate progress and peace through exchange, cooperation, and respectful, open discourse. While the advancements of populist nationalism in some corners of the world can make it easy to fall prey to cynicism about the future of democracy, we shouldn’t give up hope. There are still places where democracy continues to thrive.
Ireland's Citizens' Assembly is an intriguing experiment in deliberative democracy. Kind of like jury duty in the United States, citizens are randomly selected to participate in a discussion with each other—and experts—to find solutions to contentious issues and make recommendations to elected officials. This has enhanced citizen involvement in the political process while, counterintuitively, keeping populist passions at bay.
Not only is the Citizens’ Assembly resulting in better outcomes on highly charged moral issues like same-sex marriage, abortion, immigration, drug use, and climate change but it is restoring faith in Ireland’s representative democracy.
My new video seeks to understand how and why 100 random people getting together in a conference room has proven to be so helpful. After watching here or on our YouTube channel, comment below and tell us: What topics do you think a Citizens' Assembly could help solve elsewhere?
Landry Ayres
Senior Producer
© The UnPopulist 2024
Follow The UnPopulist on: X, Threads, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and Bluesky.
In the United States this might be worth trying at the state level for issues such as abortion and firearm regulation. But this would require a level of cooperation and trust by the governing bodies.
The "trained facilitators" who help guide the discussion away from "undesirable results" creates a conundrum: they can also guide the discussion toward what they deem desirable.
We have seen this in the US in sincere-sounding but shadowy "community engagement" groups. Who could possibly object? And yet, the outcome always seems to favor the progressive left instead of a broader community viewpoint.