International Day of Democracy: Raising hands and voices – fostering agency and ownership through deliberative democracy | Goals Lounge

Excellencies, colleagues, partners, and friends, good afternoon and welcome to Gull's Lounge. Democracy begins with a simple but powerful idea. People should have a meaningful voice in the decisions that affect their lives. Today, as trust is tested and divisions deepen, that principle is more important than ever. The Secretary General reminds us that democracy is more than elections. It is sustained through everyday human rights, the rule of law, participation, dialogue, and a willingness to listen to different points of view. Our session today will explore how deliberative processes can put those principles into practice. We're going to hear from different perspectives, launch the second edition of the Citizens Assembly Handbook, and try a practical demonstration of how people can contribute more directly to public decision making. While democracy is not always named in our conversation at the United Nations, the questions of voice, inclusion, trust and accountability are increasingly central to why the UN our global town hall matters more than ever. Now, it is my great honor and pleasure to welcome the Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations, Amina Mohammed, to deliver her opening remarks. DSG, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Well, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, lots of colleagues and friends here. Thank you, Anne-Marie, for the warm welcome. And I'm really pleased to join you here for International Day of Democracy. This year's theme is a promise and a test. And it's one where every voice counts. And we hope that democracy delivers. I want to stay with the second-half of that sentence, because delivery is where the doubt now sits in our world. People know the difference between asking for their views and seeing those views taken into account, and we need to take that experience seriously. Democracy lives through institutions, through human rights and through the rule of law, but people experience democracy in very different and personal ways. Can I speak and be heard? Can I have a hand in the decisions that shape my life? Those are questions of agency that have impacts far beyond election day. As the Secretary-General has said, each time we choose dialogue over division and cooperation over confrontation, we strengthen democracy. But dialogue has to lead to somewhere. And if not, disinformation thrives when people already feel shut out. But the answer to a loss of confidence in participation cannot be less participation. It has to be participation that visibly changes something. The strongest answer for me in participation is one that has purpose and consequence. People need to see that their voice has left a mark. That is why today's focus on deliberative democracy matters. In 2015, we saw every UN member state committed through SDG 16 to a decision making that is responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative at all levels. Citizens' assemblies are a manifestation of that commitment. In Ireland, a citizens' assembly helped move one of the country's most difficult constitutional questions towards a national referendum. In Bojaru, in the Brazilian Amazon, 50 randomly selected residents spent five sessions considering the future of their local bioeconomy, drawing on the knowledge of people who live with the choices that have been discussed. In both instances, the people closest to a decision brought experiences that governments and institutions really did need to hear. These processes do not make disagreement disappear, and they're not meant to. Their value is in pulling back the curtain so people can see how a decision was reached and whose experience really informed it. That matters, especially when some voices struggle to enter formal politics at all. Women still occupy only 27.5% of parliamentary seats worldwide. Young people often find other routes into public life because formal institutions feel distant from their own concerns and often very difficult to access. If we want wider ownership, we will have to design participation for the people least likely to receive an invitation. That also includes our work here at the United Nations. The knowledge and experience of people we serve improves our work. We are a better institution because of it. Participation also requires civic space. Journalists, climate activists, civil society defenders need to have the freedom to speak and to question power. Deliberation depends on people being able to do so without fear. And so I welcome the second edition of the Citizens' Assembly Handbook being launched here today. It offers something practical, a way to turn participation into action. Trust cannot be demanded from people. It has to be earned by leaders and by institutions. We will not deepen or restore it by asking people to have more faith in democracy. We restore it when democracy gives them reason to believe that they are heard, seen, and included in the decisions that are made. Thank you. Democracy is powered by the will of the people, by their voices, their choices, and their participation.

It thrives when human rights and fundamental freedoms of all are upheld, especially the most vulnerable. Democracy means rule or government by the people. It's the power of ordinary citizens exercised directly or through representatives to shape their own future.

I think democracy, the values and the principles that underpin it, absolutely we need them. We need them better all over the world. And they're being tested everywhere, not just in the developing world. Maybe we need a different model?

Round of applause. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Shervin Bryspees. I'm a journalist with the South African Broadcasting Corporation, SABC News, and it's my pleasure to lead this discussion today. Let me begin by thanking the Deputy Secretary General, Amina Mohammed, for her remarks and for setting the scene so clearly for today's observance of International Day of Democracy. And I will just add that the DSG was in Nigeria over the weekend. She then flew to South Africa. 30 AM this morning. So we certainly appreciate her stamina and the information and her perspective that she shared with us today. So another round of applause for her just for being here today. I've also been asked to make this a more informal session. Maybe we can pretend you're a studio audience and I'm a talk show host. And it immediately remind me of a 2004 episode of the Oprah Winfrey Show when she gave a free car to every member of the 276 member studio audience. Unfortunately, the prize won't be a car today, but it will be a better understanding of deliberative democracy. And I hope you can applaud for that. As we've heard, deliberative democracy is an increasingly important way to strengthen public trust, bring diverse voices into decision making, and help societies navigate complex challenges together. Today's session will focus on one practical model in that space, citizens' assemblies. Throughout today's session, we'll hear perspectives and real world examples from member states, partners and civil society working to strengthen citizen participation and democratic governance in different contexts. We are joined by His Excellency Mr. Jay Dhammakari, the Deputy Permanent Representative, sir, as you hear your name, come and join me on stage. The Deputy Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations, who will share reflections on France's extensive experience with citizens assemblies and Ian Walker, executive director of the New Democracy Foundation, who will introduce the Citizens Assembly Handbook and provide an overview of how these processes are working in practice. Ambassador de Maricari, let me begin with you. France has become one of the leading examples of deliberative democracy in practice. What motivated France to embrace citizens' assemblies and what value have these processes brought to public decision making?

No, thank you very much for asking. So I would begin and I salute what the DSG has said. Of course, democracy goes beyond election, but the question of elections is very key. First, we want to set the stage. No misunderstanding, of course, for France, democracy, participative democracy going through elections. But the way also the people are getting involved into parties is something that we have really at heart of our democracy. It's not that obvious that the citizens are going to come into the party. So in order to answer your question very shortly, I would say what we had in mind when we reinitiated this participative democracy is there was a lot of voices that wanted really to take part of the decisions from one election or between, I would say, between two elections. And we saw that in critical moments where we had also to take some decisions on climate change, for example. And you can remember how tricky it could be. It's still tricky. It's still tricky, but it's going on. And that was really the first experience that we had really to consult very broadly the citizens in France and to shape a decision that went into something that we know, a law, a strong law, and of course, something that could be easily implemented afterwards. We did it also more recently on the end of life process, and it can be, of course, reshaped in other processes. And I would say also it's part of what we learned, we're learning by doing, and we try to experience it from time to time, but we're part of the Open Government Partnership for a couple of years. And there were a couple of ideas floating and of course it's something that we really wanted to implement in the ground. But once again, and I will end with that, what we want to lead with this participation of citizens is also to lead to what we could call the usual democracy. Go to elections, found parties. have the rule of law at the global framework, and of course, the media should be also a place where the criticisms can be addressed.

Ambassador, for member states interested in strengthening citizen participation and trust in institutions, what advice would you offer based on France's experience with citizens' assemblies?

First, I would say, of course, each of the country has its different models, different traditions, and so on. So we cannot bring a specific tradition, and we can, of course, see, and we're trying also to see how the different countries are reinventing democracy. And as I was saying at the very beginning, of course, we have a long tradition coming from Montesquieu, Rousseau, and the 18th century of wanting that the voices can be heard inside Le Palais Bourbon, but saying at the same time, this voice can be heard outside, but not on the street, in different places where we can also shape something out of it. So we're trying to see what are the different perspectives from the different countries, listening to them, see how we can implement it, also not, because we have different models, with the tradition of France, at the same time, not telling people what to do, but maybe initiating, and it's a voice that can be heard from one election to another election, that can be a way where citizens can address the global issues without endangering the democracy.

So don't go anywhere. I've asked you two questions, but I might have a follow up in a second. Ian Walker, let's bring you in of the New Democracy Foundation, who will introduce the Citizens Assembly Handbook and share some of the core principles behind successful deliberative processes. Ian, can tell us a bit about the New Democracy Foundation and the story of this handbook.

Certainly. The New Democracy story starts 20 years ago. We had, personally, been a very significant political donor in Australia, and he looked at it and said, "I think something's wrong." And 20 years ago, people looked at us like we had two heads for saying there might be a problem with democracy. So fundamentally, we were early. And we started down this path of seeing our citizens' assemblies, our citizens' juries going to work. We started with local government. run little projects. You have to test the technical elements. Can you really recruit a representative random sample of people? Like, will it really be rich and poor, old and young, all different backgrounds, or will some groups sit out? Can they consume really diverse, difficult information? Critically, can they work together and find common ground? And lastly, will politicians act on the result? So by being early, we'd run 15, 20 projects. And as a result, people from other countries started to get in touch. I think that's the genesis of the handbook, was in conversation with initially the UN Democracy Fund. There was advice to be captured that we were issuing in cooperation, including fortunately with CESE, with Ken's team in Paris. And to say, look, there's a standard amount of technical advice. Let's give a starting point. And that's really what's in the handbook.

You and I were talking off camera, off set earlier about, it's akin to like a jury in a courtroom in the United States. People from different perspectives, they get interviewed, they are given parameters, but they have to come up with kind of a consensus verdict, right, not so.

A jury is a really nice analogy. Not a perfect analogy, but a good one. Just think, Sherwin, if we have a fabulous wild night out, we won't insist on a phone poll of 1,000 people to decide if we go to jail. It's an insane proposition. Why would you ask people what they think when they haven't had time to think, when they haven't considered information? So a jury, it's a representative group of people. They consider a diverse array of sources, and as you know, they're given a task to solve and find common ground. So clear task, common ground. Really importantly, going to Jay's comment, it's complementary with a judge. And in the same way, if judges can find juries complementary, hopefully parliaments can also find this citizen role complementary. The hardest step in politics is the first one. The first one where you say, "I'll reform something." Everyone's there to throw rocks at you. If you can actually take the first step with citizens and have an informed view, start the conversation with the parliament, you take out some of the worst elements of our democracy and replace it with what people want, which is seeing people like them in the decision.

Is it expensive?

Not doing it's really expensive.

Not doing it is really expensive. Say that again.

If you look at what we spend on elections, in Australia, you'll barrel through $500 million for an election. And our argument, much as we're seeing in France, is imagine just once every one or two years doing one of these projects. Now, at national level, you are spending $3 to $5 million. But in the context of election, for people to feel heard, for people to see that trust and connection with the parliament, what a great investment. There's many political promises, almost all political promises tend to be more expensive than that. And this is a huge problem to address. And I think what we've just seen in France, where says they announced a project on the entire French budget and public debt. This is a multi-trillion dollar decision, sorry, euro decision. Yeah, it's worth spending a few million euro to actually hear what the informed view of everyday people, because I think when you saw some of the upheaval in any country, It's people are not saying, where's that person in the blue collar job? Where's that person, someone like me who might be struggling with rent? And with lottery selection, that's what we're achieving.

Ambassador, since you're still here, on the cost factor, this is about progressive budgeting, right? The appropriations process in parliament as to really be forward-looking in terms of making the funds available to something like this. How did France do it?

No, it is. We, of course, have to budget it because, as Ian was saying, at the end, we have to have this acceptance for the decision to be made. So of course, it's tricky, but it's something that has to be budgeted. It took a little bit of time, but we did it in the current budgeting. And I hope also it will be the case in the future, of course, because it's part of the strength of democracy.

Easier said than done, particularly for poorer countries around the world, Ian.

Well, the great thing is in the first project we did with the UN Democracy Fund, we went to some of the poorest countries. And what you'll find in the handbook is a set of principles. Now, how we apply that in a richer country versus a poorer country, operationally it will be different, but the principle is the same. So one example was in Malawi, which is one of the poorer nations in Africa. We were still able to do lottery selection. We didn't do it through high-end mechanisms that we might use in Australia, literally they went to a market day and handed out coloured paper had a child pull, you know, there'd been eight sticks, you know, with paint on the end. If you pulled out a red stick and people were holding the red paper, you were in the pool to be picked. Really, honestly, zero cost way to do things. So you can do projects at smaller amounts. The key thing is the principles. That's what I really hope people take away. We've got to complement our politics. We're only hearing from the noisiest voices. and actually hear from people and start inviting them. And just inviting the people in the day jobs with regular lives and giving them that direct line and making them visible in politics with citizen assemblies, that's what we can do.

I'm not going to ask you to give me an example of some of the noisiest voices in politics today, but I will ask you a final question for the segment. If a policymaker, civil society organization, or UN partner picked up the handbook tomorrow, what is the most important thing you would hope they would take away from it?

Firstly, that they've got a starting point. I know you said the most important, but I'm going to split it into three tiny parts. This help, this is your starting point for understanding it. There are 50 partner organisations and case studies. So many people think, well, that's there, but will it work in my country? This is the starting point to show how many different national contexts it's worked in. What I really hope they take away is one of the comments that the Deputy Secretary General made, and that is that institutions matter. And what's the institution that our democracies are missing? It's one with regular people in it. It's one that's visible to the entire population so those people feel heard. And it's one where Parliament and our elected MPs substantially respond. And this handbook is just the first step. So, yes, I hope anyone who's taking interest knows that they can take the first step here, come to UNDP, come to UNDEF, maybe come to New Democracy, and we can give you that technical help.

All right, both of you stay on stage. I'm not going to release you quite yet. We've heard a bit about the theory and the tools. Now we'd like to explore what this looks like in practice. Around the world, governments, the United Nations and civil society organizations are using deliberative approaches in different ways to involve people more directly in public decision making, build trust and address complex policy challenges. To help us unpack some of these practical experiences, I'm delighted to welcome our lineup of guests. Our first guest is His Excellency, do I need to release the guests now? You guys can exit left, my apologies, I need the space, I need the space. Our first guest is His Excellency Mr. Jong-in Bae, Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations for the Republic of Korea. Ambassador, welcome. Good to see you, sir. Ambassador, could you share the Republic of Korea's experience in using deliberative approaches to address complex or potentially divisive policy issues?

Thank you for this opportunity. We have an example. Nine years ago, we have very divisive issue of whether to construct additional nuclear power plants or permanently halted. So the country was split and the government came up with a new idea, innovative approach. We set up citizens assembly or panel. 20,000 citizens were initially surveyed and 500 volunteers or randomly picked for 33 days, they have studied and have a very intense deliberations and also talking to the experts. So a majority emerged and with the recommendation for the construction of a nuclear power plant, the president accepted that even though it was against his campaign pledge. So this is an example where decision making happens with citizen, not to them. So I'm glad that this book you are launching today, it have been an illustration of this case.

I mean, you use the example of nuclear power plants. I mean, these are not easy questions to involve citizenry in, right? I mean, these are complicated issues that cost a lot of money often. What do these discussions really look like? I mean, you need rules to run. an assembly like this, otherwise you're going to have chaos, no?

Yeah, we have initially a committee and that designed what kind of expertise and what kind of materials we are going to provide so that the panels have very balanced views. Actually, they have changed their opinions over the course of the deliberation, not because of pressure, because of mutual learning.

What lessons Ambassador Ascoria learned from the deliberative process, particularly in ensuring inclusive and informed citizen participation and building public acceptance of policy decisions. You have to be a very good communicator to convince a vast majority on issues. So what does that look like?

I think in this case, we have several lessons. First, inclusion and representation. Even though small in numbers, the panel really looks like the whole society, old and young and every region. not the loudest voices. And also on information and mutual learning, as I have said, that some of our citizens have changed their mind over the course of deliberation. And lastly, acceptance, because even the minority at the end of the discussion, they changed their-- they accepted the result because they were part of it. And also, the government had accepted the recommendation. If it had not, there would have been some cynicism. fair process, honest information, and bridging to the policy making. Those are the elements that makes this citizens assembly successful or meaningful.

Just a quick follow up. What does cynicism look like in the Republic of Korea?

You mean citizens?

Yeah. This is a vibrant democracy.

Yeah, yeah. We are very vocal. And from the From a bureaucrat's perspective, it's difficult, but I think we have a good freedom of speech and a very vibrant democracy.

As you well know, we have a big on Monday before the General Assembly kicks off. It's going to be a big high level meeting on artificial intelligence. Building on these experiences, Ambassador, how is Korea seeking to advance deliberative democracy in the age of artificial intelligence? And what role can AI play in facilitating greater public participation in policymaking? And how do you ensure it doesn't corrupt the process?

We are actually going further because we are conducting now two more citizens assembly. One is for exactly this AI question. This time, this is not binary question, yes or no question. The question is, what kind of society do we want in the age of AI? So 200 panelists citizens panel, half of them are the young generation because they are the live longest in this age of AI. And the other is for jobs. It's a jobs for across nation. How can we make jobs sustainable for the elderly and also younger generation? Interestingly, we are making use of AI platform to receive online inputs from the general public. So I know that we should be very careful against the misinformation, disinformation potentially generated by AI, but I think AI can present an opportunity for us to think together. As the UNDP report says that we should be really focused on what AI can do for us, humanity, instead of just marveling at their capacity.

Yeah, if it doesn't kill us in 10 years, right? That's apparently the narrative right now. Thank you very much, Ambassador. Please stay with us as we continue the conversation. Roll up the AutoQ. Next, I'm pleased to welcome Sarah Rattray, Co-Director, Governance, Rule of Law and Peacebuilding Hub at the United Nations Development Programme. Very good to see you.

Good to see you.

Sarah, welcome. From UNDP's perspective, why is there growing interest in citizen participation and deliberative democracy today?

Thank you, Sherwin, and thanks for having UNDP here at this really important launch. The challenges that governments and societies are facing right now are so vast and interrelated, and they're also fluid, from climate change to technical transformation of societies, sometimes breakdowns in trust and social cohesion. We need to continue to invest in supporting democratic institutions like parliaments and national human rights institutions and public administration reform and elections and rule of law. But really, we also need to look at sustained engagement of citizens in public policy discussions, bringing to bear their experiences, their lived experiences, and how they experience public policy impacts on their lives. And that's just as important, we would say, as strengthening those institutions. We need to look at both of them together, because it's very critical for us as we work to support human rights and social cohesion in societies. Elections are critical moments in countries. They help to establish representatives of the people. How do we continue to engage between elections? We have to see everything as part of one approach to democratic governance.

When I hear the term "we need to invest more in", I coldness comes over my body because I'm like, where are we going to get the money from, given the fact that the fiscal space is so shrunk for all the things, human rights, development, et cetera, that we seek to do. So when you say invest, what are you talking about, Sarah?

Well, I think the earlier speaker spoke about the cost of not investing in understanding lived experiences and policies that perhaps don't reflect how people engage with service delivery of governments and so on. So there's a cost in not doing something, there's a cost in doing something. But I think what we found, and if you look at the handbook, I think it's a great example of it. There's so many good different approaches. There's no one-size-fits-all. There's no blueprint here. What works in one country might work differently in another country. There's lots of data and innovation now around foresight and participation around how to use digital, how to use digital systems, artificial intelligence in a safe way, for example, citizen assemblies. There's a range of different approaches that we can use, and some of them can be embedded also in our broader approaches to democratic governance. Does it come with some cost potentially, but there's also a cost to not engaging with citizens and not hearing their voices and public policy.

A fair point. How is UNDP helping governments respond to this growing demand for more meaningful participation.

Well, the good thing is that I think the question as to whether deliberative democracy is needed is kind of answered. I would hope to say that is, but of course we're still trying to push the approaches. And I think the handbook is a great example because it does show all the different types of examples in many countries around the world, including in the global south. And how can we as UNDP bring to bear those examples across different countries, scale up approaches and solutions? This is something we're really focused on. We're just about to launch a global academy in deliberative democracy so that we can really share those examples. But I mean, there's many I could point to there in the handbook. In Mongolia, for example, we worked with deliberative democracy through polling to really look at how local communities feel about public policy that's going to impact them. There's also thematic approaches in different countries. In Timor-Leste, for example, we worked with young people, really to get their reaction to intergenerational issues that they're going to be left to carry throughout their lives. In Kenya, for example, we looked at climate resilience and water access through deliberative democracy. So it can really be a very versatile methodology that can speak to populations, particularly those that are the most left behind, which of course is central to the SDGs.

Final one for you, Sarah. Deliberative approaches are now being used in very different political, institutional, and cultural contexts around the world. In your view, what is their value and where do you see the field heading next?

Well, I do think it's excellent that, as I said, we've kind of answered the question. I think we know that we need deliberative democracy. We need representational democracy. We need democratic institutions. We have to have the suite of solutions and we need to be working across societies and communities to advance progress. However, we need to have ecosystems in place and democratic processes in which that is standardised. It should not be seen as an ad hoc exercise around, for example, one particular public policy priority or a particular process. We need systems in which that kind of approach is part and parcel of how we work. So for UNDP, of course, that's something that we're doing. We're in 170 countries and we're working across the range of democratic institutions. And we really need to make this just the way that we do business, I think, as a global community.

Sarah, thank you very much indeed for those insights. Please join the ambassador by staying right there. I'm going to welcome our next guest, Mandeep Tiwana. You don't have to move. He's going to sit right here. Secretary General of Civicus, the World Alliance for Citizen Participation. I was told I needed to move, so you just stay right there.

No problem.

Mandeep, welcome.

Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here and be with all these wonderful people.

How important is meaningful citizen participation and deliberation to a healthy and functioning democracy? That's an easy one for you. Off you go.

That's the essence of democracy. And as the Secretary General reminded us in his message today, democracy is not just about elections. It's much more than elections. Actually, it's the ability of people to speak truth to power. It's the ability of people to come together, form organizations to advance joint interests. is the ability of people to come and protest both online and offline and criticize those who take decisions on their behalf and put them on the right path. It's the ability of people to also advance common interests. It's the ability of people to use the courts. It's the ability of people to form associations, form opinions, change society. That's how changes were achieved through the exercise of civic freedoms. So civic freedoms are the scaffolding of democracy.

Civic freedoms are the scaffolding of democracy. There's a t-shirt, and you can purchase them on the way out. How would you describe the state of public participation and deliberative democracy around the world today? Are you seeing growing interest in these approaches? And where are you seeing that growing interest in particular?

So when the resolution for the International Day of Democracy was put together in 2007, It was a unanimous resolution. So all of the countries across the world agreed that democracy is a value worth adopting. But today, according to our research on the Civicus Monitor, which is a participatory platform where we measure these civic freedoms of peaceful assembly, association, and expression, about 75 countries have enabling or somewhat enabling conditions for civic freedoms. So that is, you can form an organization without excessive government interference. You can go out and protest on the street and you won't be beaten up or thrown into prison. Or you can criticize your local politician and you won't get a knock on the door. So just 7% of the world's population live in these 75 countries. Most of them are small countries. So let that sink in. So it's actually quite a disabling environment for the exercise of civic freedoms today.

Is that something you're seeing as well, Sarah, in terms of the-- the limits where it's really succeeding.

I mean there is a really worrying trend in terms of the restrictions on civic space and I want to applaud CIVICUS for monitoring and tracking it over so many years, it's having a real impact on the work of human rights defenders and this is another reason why these kind of methodologies are so critical but it is unfortunately a very worrying trend that we're seeing globally, I agree with Mandeep.

And of course South Korea is a good example of where it is working, yes.

It is. Actually, South Korea is one of the countries--

Thanks for confirming.

I was in trouble for a second.

-Which has enabling conditions for the exercise of civic freedoms. So you can take that back, Ambassador, to your people.

We are doing this, trying these new forms of deliberative democracy. Not only just for yes or no question, but sometimes agenda setting or task identification. We are trying and experimenting a lot of these form. And one thing I have to tell you is democracy, progress of democracy is not always linear. A couple of years ago, we have this martial law incident, and what we call the light revolution. It shows how democracy fight back and can be resilient under emergent circumstances as well.

I remember that. That's a very good important point. Final one, how can the UN and civil society work together to create more opportunities for inclusive dialogue, deliberation, and citizen engagement in democratic processes? And don't point to this as an example. I need a new example.

This is a start. So the UN has a guidance note on civic space was put together in 2020. It talks about three things. It talks about protection, talks about protection of human rights defenders from persecution when they speak truth to power. It talks about promotion of good policies and standards to enable better people's participation. And then it talks about participation, which is having good practices and getting people at the table. But there are also a few other ideas that we at civil society have been speaking about. One is the idea of a UN Parliamentary Assembly. Some might consider it an idea before its time, but it's actually an opportunity to have people directly elect their representatives to the UN.

So UN Parliament, you just said that again.

Yes, a UN Parliamentary Assembly that sits adjacent to the General Assembly. The General Assembly has representatives of the state, whereas the Parliamentary Assembly will have representatives of the people. And then those interests, those people can actually directly represent the interests of their constituencies there. Then there's the idea of a UN citizens initiative where a critical mass of people can come together. It's based on the European citizens initiative and they can ask the Security Council and the General Assembly to take action on a particular issue that might impact them. For example, climate change or militarization or advance of sexual and reproductive freedoms, for instance. And then is the third idea, which is the low hanging fruit, which we at Civicus have been pushing for some time, is the idea of a people's or civil society envoy to drive and champion the UN's outreach to people across the world and create better pathways for better participation of civil society and people in the UN's own work.

Let me get a quick reaction from a member state. What do you think of that?

Just someone from the UN's perspective. I think we have a lot to share and emulate on two scales, domestically, this deliberative democracy, and also at the UN, this is what should be aimed at, having reasoned discussion and not just only majority, the whole process.

The reason I wanted to bring you in immediately for your purposes is that this is a member states driven organization, let's not forget it. So that's where the power lies. So if any of this is gonna happen, you're gonna have to get those guys on board. Thank you to my guests, thanks very much. Thank you to all the speakers for sharing their valuable experiences. And as I speak, you can leave the stage. Thank you very much. What we've heard today. demonstrates that deliberative approaches can take many forms, but they share a common goal, creating meaningful opportunities for people to help shape their decisions that affect their lives. Please join me once more in thanking our distinguished guests. Okay, so throughout today's conversation, we've heard about deliberative democracy in theory, and we've explored examples of how governments, the United Nations, and civil society are putting these approaches into practice. But what does a citizens' assembly actually look like? What kinds of questions can ordinary citizens be asked to consider? And how does a diverse group of randomly selected people, not an easy feat, work through difficult policy choices to arrive at recommendations? Well, I don't have those answers. To help us bring these questions to life, I'd like to welcome Ian Walker back to the stage. Ian. Ian will walk us through a practical example of how citizens' assembly might operate, including the kinds of challenges participants may be asked to address, the information they receive, and the deliberative process that helps a group move from individual opinions to collective recommendations. Ian, over to you.

Thanks, Sherwin. We have a methodology that generally puts citizens together for 40, 50, 60 hours in person across four to five months. I've got seven minutes to give you a taste of that.

Six minutes and 50 seconds.

So I'm going to do a really simple exercise. Just call it a certainty exercise. There's no way we can really explain what lottery selection is, but you probably pick that we can pick, you know, you know how Powerball works, that's how we're picking citizens. There's no real exercise we do around information. But the most common question we get is, you've got a room of 50 or 100 people, how do they ever find common ground? How does 80%, 90% of just a sample of the population agree to something? You generally can't get four people to agree to what to put on a pizza. How are you getting that many people to agree what to respond to a government with? So this is an interactive activity. I'm going to ask you just two questions. Hopefully there's no right and wrong answers. And I'm going to ask a few of you to show me what your answers are at the end. The only person this is an optional for is you, Sean. I need a guinea pig and welcome to the cage. So I want you to think of this question. What do you think, expressed as a percentage, what's the likelihood of a catastrophic event affecting your life as a result of climate change? I'm just going to give you a minute to think about Feel free to chat with people around you. I'm not going to give you a huge amount of time. If you've got a phone and you can type the numbers really large, or some of the innovative will use the white paddles. I'm not sure if we're meant to draw on them or if they're reuse. No, we're not meant to draw on them. So you can see how carefully we check that in advance. So if people got a number and they can write it down in their phone and they're ready to hand it up, has everyone got a number in mind?

Yeah.

Let's share it. Let's get the studio audience. If you're happy to share a number and you can hold up your phone and turn it around, we'll see how good my eyesight is.

Percentage possibility of a catastrophic event happening.

Affecting your life as a result of climate change. Is anyone happy to share a number there? 90%.

25.

90. Okay.

80.

80. 75. This is a very considered audience. Now, because you know what normally happens in politics? Politics is binary. If you think about how people campaign, they will most commonly campaign on 100% and 0%. This is absolutely going to happen, and that side's wrong, and vice versa. So generally what we ask people, this is being a very considered audience, I didn't get 100 out there, I would have thought this was a place where we might. However, what we generally do is say to the people who answered 100%, would you be just as comfortable with your answer being 99%? For those who answered 0%, would you be just as happy at 1%? So we're not manipulating anything. I always say to people, we still don't know if eggs are good for us or not. We're not certain about that. So hopefully we're not super certain on climate models as well. So now I'm going to ask you a second question. This is dangerous to do in a largely tax exempt employer as well. But when it comes to addressing that, think of your level of certainty. How much are you prepared to spend each year to address that? Just in increased taxes and through maybe an increase in your energy bills. What are you prepared to pay? Hopefully we could standardize to US dollars with a diverse audience. Again, I just want to give you a minute or so to think through what's your answer. What's that answer?

You asked for a percentage or a number.

I asked you for a dollar now. What are you prepared to spend, you? I mean, obviously TV hosts are fabulously paid, so I might turn more to the audience. Maybe in Australia. But I want you to think of a dollar figure. Just take a minute or so, and again, write that dollar figure down.

Okay.

Annually, yeah, annually. And it can be just through taxes you pay or because your energy bill has changed. Like, I'm happy, I'm comfortable with that amount of money going to address this problem. I can see a few heads went back there thinking, how do I calculate that?

I mean, we're budgeting now.

That's what we're doing. And you see, as you think of a number, what am I doing? I'm pushing you beyond a public opinion response. I'm pushing you beyond a five-second response into a public judgment response. you see how simple it is to get people to move beyond, I just think it's X, to now think about the downstream effect. I'm doing this in six minutes and 50 seconds with you. Can you see what happens when we do this with citizens for months? Is anyone happy to share a dollar figure with me? Now, I've done this 40 times, so there's generally super consistent answers. And what I'd love to hear from first are the people who answered 80%, 75% and above. Can I just see-- I've lost track of the room. $35,000 a year you're prepared to spend.

No, I said 25, so you were.

Hearing-- You said $25,000. I'm going to check your contract. You must-- Any other figures around the room? 5,000. 5,000.

Is it what I spend personally?

Yeah, it's you. It's you. Oh, OK.

I thought it was the country's budget.

No, no, it's all, I mean, you pay taxes, it's what falls on you. And what we're really trying to do here is move away from the government should fix it, the kind of this wishlist approach, into, well, ultimately you think about it, you pay the taxes, what's that figure gonna be? I've got a lovely 5,000 over there, up to the 35,000. So. 300, yep, okay. And obviously it's gonna vary a bit by country context. In Australia, do you know the most common answer if I ask people that and they're answered with a high number? Generally, it falls around the $6,000 mark. OK? It doesn't matter how high this figure is, because the point is the second part. When I then go to the cohort who answered 5% or less, 5% or less, I ask them, before you tell me your dollar figure, I want you to think about what the odds are of your house burning down. Which in Australia, for tedious statistics, it's about one in 275,000 chance your house will burn down. Do you pay for home insurance? Now, I'm not going to go around the room for this. Most common figure for home insurance is about $2,500. So when you slow people down to think, one of the hardest problems that's bedeviled parliaments and politics around the world is a gap between, well, yes, there's some $25,000 paid TV hosts and the $5,000 people. and the $2,500 people. When I put it to you, do you think you could find common ground with people and bridge and land on a figure? And citizens' assemblies, in that simple thought exercise, when you slow down and get beyond the slogan and get to the action, that recommendation a politician can act on, that's all we're really doing, moving people beyond the slogan into data, into dollars, into the trade-off. And Sherwin, hopefully that's a little sample of five minutes of what would otherwise be 60 hours in a citizens assembly.

A really useful exercise. Ian Walker, everybody. Thank you very much. That was really good. Thank you very much. I think I'll stand for this. Thank you to all our distinguished speakers and guests today. As we've heard, deliberative democracy is about creating meaningful opportunities for people to participate in shaping the decisions that affect their lives. Whether through citizens' assemblies, public dialogues, or other participatory approaches, these processes can help build trust, strengthen institutions, and bring diverse perspectives to policymakers. Today's discussion has highlighted not only the growing interest in these approaches, but also the practical ways they are being used by governments, the United Nations, and civil society around the world. Thank you for joining us as we mark the International Day of Democracy. We appreciate your presence today. Thank you. Thank you.