Processus de consultation hybrides : mixer citoyens et élus pour de meilleures politiques publiques

Hybrid participation processes are initiatives that enable direct deliberation between elected representatives together with citizens to co-develop proposals, together in the same room.

Other terms are also used synonymously: mixed mini-publics, mixed deliberative forums, hybrid elected/citizen process, etc.

Ces dernières années on assiste à une explosion de la participation citoyenne à tous les niveaux de pouvoir : budget participatif, assemblées citoyennes, conseils de quartier, assemblée de la jeunesse, convention climat… Ces initiatives entendent apporter une réponse à la crise de la représentativité et à la défiance croissante des citoyens vis-à-vis de la politique. Pour autant, la partition citoyenne tient-elle vraiment ses promesses ? 

En mai dernier, Le Soir titrait “Participation citoyenne en Belgique : un rapport accablant”. Des experts tiraient en effet la sonnette d’alarme : les recommandations produites par les citoyens sont peu ou pas considérées par les élus qui les reçoivent. L’exemple de la Convention Citoyenne pour le Climat en France ou du G1000 en Belgique sont particulièrement emblématiques. Seulement 12 % des mesures de la Convention française ont été reprises telles quelles et aucune proposition du G1000 n’a réellement influencé l’agenda politique belge. Résultat : la participation produit, à l’inverse de l’effet escompté, toujours plus de citoyens déçus. 

Face à ce constat, les dispositifs mixtes de participation proposent une parade intéressante : et si les élus participaient directement à l’élaboration des recommandations avec les citoyens pour renforcer leur appropriation ? Plutôt que de recevoir les recommandations en fin de parcours comme un corps étranger, les élus en deviennent co-concepteur, ce qui vise à faciliter leur mise en application.

Bringing elected representatives and citizens closer together is not easy. Most participation initiatives exclude elected representatives from discussions with citizens in order to guard against their influence and guarantee freedom of discussion.

Practitioners and academics are wondering whether the ease with which elected representatives use the public word might allow them to dominate discussions with citizens. The risk is that the recommendations produced will ultimately reflect the will of the elected representatives rather than that of the public.

The risk of elected representatives dominating discussions with citizens is real, but can be managed. Recent experience with deliberation between elected representatives and citizens provide valuable lessons for balancing exchanges between elected representatives and citizens. One should pay attention to at least the following drivers of success:

. A sufficiently low proportion of elected representatives: a recent study (Grönlund et al., 2022) shows that below a certain number of elected representatives, the latter no longer have a negative influence on the quality of deliberation with citizens. Keeping a low proportion of elected representatives would therefore make it possible to balance the dialogue between elected representatives and citizens.

.Enough time for citizens: applying the same procedure for citizens and elected representatives sometimes risks giving the advantage to the latter, who are more at ease expressing themselves. Allowing preparation time solely for citizens means that they can then enter into the deliberations with elected representatives who are better equipped and on an equal footing.

.Experienced facilitators: balancing the contributions of elected representatives, who are experts in public discourse, requires, more than for other participation initiatives, active and sufficiently assured leadership to maintain the framework.

.Preparing elected representatives too: while they may be used to discussing issues with citizens, this type of exchange between equals is often new for elected representatives. To clarify their role and the proposed framework, and thus enhance the quality of discussions between elected representatives and citizens, plan preparation time with them before the meetings.

.Valuing complementarity: one pitfall would be to fall into the antagonism of « expert elected representatives » and « non-expert citizens », with one implicitly having to instruct the other. On the contrary, it is important to emphasise the complementary nature of expertise. This strengthens the equal relationship between elected representatives and citizens and the legitimacy of each.

On the other hand, there are real benefits to be drawn from allowing ordinary and elected citizens to work together. It can:

.Make it easier for elected representatives to take ownership of the recommendations: inviting elected representatives to co-construct with citizens rather than receiving proposals at the end of the process will make it easier for elected representatives to take ownership of them. This greater ownership will make it easier to implement the proposals.

.Bring elected representatives and citizens closer together: bringing elected representatives and citizens together in a balanced and positive setting helps to break down prejudices. Citizens can emerge with a greater sense of closeness to their representatives and a better understanding of their realities. Involving elected representatives can also deconstruct misconceptions about participation and the ability of citizens to contribute to decision-making.

.Strengthen the solidity of the proposals: following the Citizens’ Climate Convention in France, for example, we saw politicians and lobbies unravelling the recommendations made by citizens. Involving elected representatives directly in the drafting process would make it possible to avoid this phenomenon. Elected representatives would be invited to express any reservations they might have, not in order to undermine the proposals but to find compromises and overcome any blockages.

.Encourage a culture of participation within the institutions: in the course of the 6 deliberative commissions that have taken place since 2019 in the Brussels Parliament, a large number of MPs have been able to take part in this mechanism bringing together parliamentarians and citizens chosen by lot. We can assume that this direct and massive exposure of elected representatives to these initiatives will change their view of the place of citizens in politics, and spread the culture of participation within the institutions.

Mixed participatory processes that bring together elected representatives and citizens currently represent a minority of participation initiatives. However, more and more projects are moving in this direction and inviting elected representatives to take part in discussions with citizens:

.2013 – 2014: First Constitutional Convention, Ireland
.Since 2015: Political task committees, Gentofte, Denmark
.Since 2016: Mixed assemblies in the municipality of Korsholm, Finland
.Since 2019: Deliberative Commissions, Belgium
.Since 2023: Combined General Meeting in Poitiers, France
.Since 2023: Hallo Bundestag initiative, Germany

There are surely more. Please share them with us: info@dreamocracy.eu.

Deliberative Committees are a mixed model of citizen participation in Belgium, in which parliamentarians and citizens chosen by lot deliberate to produce recommendations on a given subject. They were launched in the Brussels region in 2019 and in the Walloon region in 2023. 8 Deliberative Commissions have already been set up in various Belgian assemblies, making this country a leader in mixed systems bringing together elected representatives and citizens.