Advisory, Collaborative and Scrutinizing Roles of Deliberative Mini-Publics

Abstract

<p>The normative point of departure in this article is that mini-publics can “complement”<br>representative democracy only if they enhance inclusive processes of mutual justification<br>among elected representatives who are responsible for public decisions. This article<br>distinguishes three different roles of mini-publics in representative decision-making. Minipublics<br>can be 1) advisory when they provide input for collective will-formation in the<br>representative arena, 2) collaborative when they involve elected representatives in the<br>deliberative process, 3) scrutinizing when they check representative decision-making. The<br>article analyzes strengths and weaknesses of these roles of mini-publics. Advisory minipublics<br>are particularly vulnerable to “cherry-picking.” While collaborative uses of minipublics<br>may facilitate inclusive reason-giving among elected representatives, they entail<br>risks of representative dominance. Scrutinizing use of mini-publics seem particularly<br>promising from the normative perspective, but it requires a well-defined institutional<br>framework. The article concludes that while there are ways to avoid problems<br>emerging in these different roles, political context is crucial in terms of the deliberative<br>impact of mini-publics.<br></p>