Difficulty can arise in many contexts and involve a wide range of topics.
Difficulty can arise in many contexts and involve a wide range of topics. Some recent real-world examples include Ireland’s Citizens’ Assembly on Abortion, Citizens’ Assemblies in post-conflict regions such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, the South Australia Nuclear Fuel Cycle Citizens’ Jury, various Citizens’ Assemblies on Climate Change, and deliberation on Reunification in Korea. These issues are often difficult to discuss because they involve fundamental values and beliefs that are deeply held by individuals and communities.
Several difficulties can arise when deliberating in specific contexts. These difficulties may include participant polarisation (not specifically related to the issue), post-conflict situations, ethnic tensions, historical injustices, institutional weakness (trust and legitimacy), institutional capacity (resourcing), authoritarian regimes, social resistance to dissent, and stakeholder sabotage. All of these factors can undermine the effectiveness of a deliberative process, and can also combine to create even more difficult circumstances.
Ireland’s Citizens’
Assembly on Abortion
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Assemblies in post-conflict regions
South Australia
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Citizens’ Jury
Korea
Citizens’ Assemblies on Climate Change, and deliberation on Reunification
Often, issues and contexts intertwine. While some topics are difficult in their own right, political and social contexts can make routine deliberations challenging due to the polarisation they introduce into the room. In this guide, we will not touch on contexts that make the administration of citizens’ assemblies difficult due to common but severe constraints, such as financial, literacy, time, and safety.
A lack of physical safety may be a downstream effect of some of the following issues or contexts but it is generally accepted that, whatever the cause, compromised physical safety of participants raises challenges that fundamentally undermine the safe and genuinely deliberative nature of citizens’ assemblies and must otherwise be addressed before true deliberation can take place.
In general, difficulty arises from polarisation that precedes a deliberation. This section outlines some of these areas:
Issues related to group identity or ethnicity can be difficult to deliberate on. These issues may be emotional and can be tied to past traumas or injustices. In some cases, participants may have experienced violence or discrimination themselves or may have family members who have. These experiences can make it difficult to engage in respectful dialogue and may require special attention to ensure that all voices are heard. Examples here include citizens’ assemblies in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Issues related to post-conflict situations or in post-conflict contexts are difficult to deliberate on. These issues may be emotional and can be tied to past traumas or injustices. In some cases, participants may have experienced violence or discrimination themselves or may have family members who have. These experiences can make it difficult to engage in respectful dialogue and may require special attention to ensure that all voices are heard. Examples here include citizens’ assemblies in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Issues related to other forms of historical polarisation can be difficult to deliberate on. These issues may be emotional and can be tied to past traumas or injustices. These experiences can make it difficult to engage in respectful dialogue and may require special attention to ensure that all voices are heard. Examples here include downstream cultural and political impacts from civil conflicts such as the American Civil War.
When individuals hold strongly opposing views on an issue, it can be difficult to find common ground and reach a consensus. This is common when deliberating on values-laden questions – issues that involve fundamental values or identity questions, such as marriage equality, abortion, race or immigration. Deliberating on these issues can be particularly difficult because people’s values and identities are often deeply held and can be difficult to reconcile. An example of this might be polarisation on the issue of vaccine mandates such as in the Citizens’ Panel on COVID-19 in Michigan.
Some issues may face a specific form of polarisation where a claim is made to a separate absolutist source of power that theoretically should be making the decisions according some deliberators such as when religion is involved. This might be similar to the above form of polarisation but with some unique complications because of the way in which it can combine group identity, ethnicity and the nature of some forms of religion.
Political issues can also be challenging to deliberate on, particularly in contexts where there is a high degree of partisanship or polarisation. When participants have strong partisan affiliations or are heavily influenced by political ideologies, it can be difficult to reach a consensus or engage in productive dialogue. For example, Bosnia and Herzegovina Citizens’ Assembly for Constitutional and Electoral Reform.
Issues related to indigenous rights can also be difficult to deliberate on. Indigenous communities may have unique perspectives and experiences that are not fully understood by non-indigenous participants. In addition, historical injustices and ongoing systemic discrimination can make it difficult to engage in respectful dialogue. For example, the South Australia Nuclear Fuel Cycle Citizens’ Assembly.
Issues related to future generations and social change can be difficult to deliberate on. These issues often require participants to think beyond their immediate interests and consider the needs of future generations, sometimes many decades into the future. They may also require participants to grapple with complex ethical and moral questions.
A power imbalance can make deliberation difficult because it can limit the ability of some participants to fully engage in the deliberation process. Power imbalances can occur in various ways, such as through social status, economic resources, or political influence. When one group has significantly more power than another, it can influence the deliberation in their favour and silence the voices of less powerful groups.
One important question to consider when deliberating on difficult issues is whether or not the process can change people’s views.
Research shows that through deliberation, people’s views often change when presented with new information and the personal stories of their neighbours. However, not all issues are created equally when it comes to openness to changing our minds.