Agency, Institutional Design and Deliberative Mini-Publics

Advocates play a significant role in the use and design of deliberative mini-publics (DMPs). From an institutional perspective, the advocates’ role includes setting the narratives, practices, and (sometimes) rules that are used for this form of democratic innovation.

In an Australian doctoral study looking at four cases at different levels of government, involving 14 DMPs, advocates (where they were involved) had a major impact on the design and outcomes of these DMPs.

This research applied the third wave of institutionalism focused on three broad modes of constraint: rules, practices and narrative (Lowndes and Roberts, 2009). This scholarship recognised the role of agency in addition to structure and environment in determining how institutions are designed, operate and change. The more recent concept of institutional work (Lawrence et al., 2009) was also applied to support consideration of change as it is happening rather than looking at change and the role of actors in retrospect.

In two of the four cases, actors promoted and designed the DMPs, whereas the other two cases were developed in a more ad hoc manner, allowing a comparison. Where advocates were promoting and designing the DMPs, a more repeatable process was designed and delivered; however, these cases also highlighted the tensions between the narratives used to promote the use of DMPs to decision-makers and the practices designed to meet the core principles of deliberative democracy.

These tensions particularly impacted how decision-makers understood the purpose of DMPs. Were the DMPs “helping” decision-makers or giving a voice to citizens? Deliberative democratic theory would direct our gaze towards the latter, whereas the promotion of DMPs focused on the former. These two perspectives came into conflict when decision-makers didn’t like the recommendations of DMPs. As a result, decision-makers rejected DMPs’ recommendations, which did not “help” them with their agenda.