Graham Smith is Professor at the Centre for the Study of Democracy at the University of Westminster. We caught up with him to discuss his latest book(1) and how citizens’ assemblies can contribute – at their own level – to solving the climate crisis. For the author, these are tangible initiatives that offer a glimpse of what a different kind of democracy might look like.
Missions Publiques: You coordinate the Knowledge Network on Climate Assemblies (KNOCA)(2) of the European Climate Foundation. In your book, you explore the successes, challenges, and hopes linked to these participatory mechanisms. Do you genuinely believe that citizens’ assemblies can be a game changer in addressing today’s ecological and political crises?
Graham Smith: That’s a question I ask myself most mornings! We have to be honest: many citizens’ assemblies haven’t had the systemic impact we had hoped for. But that’s not the whole story. Take the French Citizens’ Convention on Climate: while it is often criticized, our research shows it had more impact than most commentators believe.
Part of the problem lies in political memory and lack of follow-up mechanisms. Take the €9 tax on plane tickets: it’s being debated now, but few people know it was proposed by the Convention. The challenge is that there are often no mechanisms to ensure assembly proposals remain part of the public debate over the long term. For instance, in the Ostbelgien Permanent Dialogue, the citizens’ council monitors the recommendations from assemblies. We need similar mechanisms to ensure that citizens’ ideas don’t vanish after a few months. Citizens’ assemblies, as they currently stand, won’t overturn power dynamics. However, what they do offer is a glimpse into what a different democracy could look like. This aligns with Erik Olin Wright’s concept of “real utopias”: tangible initiatives that demonstrate alternative paths.
Missions Publiques: You mention tensions between long-term vision and concrete recommendations. How can these two approaches be reconciled within assemblies?
Graham Smith: That’s a real design challenge. Assemblies often generate ambitious visions that challenge the status quo, but governments tend to focus on specific recommendations they know how to address. The Scottish example is illustrative. The government responded to its Climate Assembly’s recommendations by involving all relevant ministries. On paper, it was exemplary. However, citizens felt their overarching vision for Scotland was not taken seriously. Governments are organised in ways that make it easier for them to respond to individual policy recommendations, but not to visions that often disrupt the prevailing system.
Missions Publiques: Ireland is often cited as a benchmark. Can you explain what made its assemblies so effective and whether their model can be replicated elsewhere?
Graham Smith: The Irish experience is fascinating but challenging to replicate. Context played a key role. The country was emerging from a severe financial crisis that had eroded trust in institutions. Assemblies were seen as a tool for democratic renewal, with cross-party support from the outset. What distinguishes Ireland is its institutional integration. Assemblies are overseen by the Prime Minister’s office, their recommendations are reviewed by a parliamentary committee, and then forwarded to the government, ensuring a structured follow-up. Assemblies are now a commonly understood part of Ireland’s politics which generates media and broader citizen attention.
By contrast, consider Austria. Its climate assembly was well-designed: six weekends, stakeholder involvement, and rich debates. Yet, the Climate Minister who commissioned the assembly was unable to garner wider government support. Without that support, its recommendations had no impact. Even the best technical designs fail without strong political alignment. The reverse can also be the case. Luxembourg is an intriguing example. Its climate assembly was a bit of an organizational mess: a different topic for each of its five weekends; they ran out of time and had to create a less structured approach to writing recommendations on the fly; no information about the work of the assembly can be found on its website. Yet, because it was directly linked to the Prime Minister’s office, it had a tangible impact on national policy.
"The challenge is drawing stakeholders into assemblies in ways that enhances their commitment and support for its outcomes but does not undermine process integrity.
Graham Smith
Professor at the Centre for the Study of Democracy at the University of Westminster
Missions Publiques: Among your critiques, you highlight that citizens and policymakers sometimes have unrealistic expectations of what assemblies can achieve. Could you give an example of such an unrealistic expectation? What do you think is the “right purpose” or mandate for a citizens’ assembly?
Graham Smith: A common unrealistic expectation is the belief that assemblies can be a “magic bullet”, producing innovative solutions that are immediately applicable within existing political or administrative systems. This view underestimates the complexity of governance systems, the power dynamics at play policy communities and the time needed to translate recommendations into concrete actions.
A striking example is the French Citizens’ Convention on Climate. Many participants were disappointed by the time it took for their proposals to be translated into visible public policies. Yet anyone familiar with legislative processes knows that ambitious measures often take years to materialize. This disconnect between citizens’ expectations and administrative realities fuelled a sense of failure, even though, according to a recent KNOCA study(3), nearly 70% of the recommendations were at least partially implemented.
Missions Publiques: To increase the impact of these assemblies, you emphasize the importance of involving stakeholders throughout the process. Would you say their participation is even more crucial during the follow-up phase?
Graham Smith: Absolutely. Stakeholder participation is essential, not only in governance bodies and providing evidence but even more so during the follow-up phase. This is when the proposals from citizens’ assemblies need to find their place within the political and societal systems. Stakeholders—whether from the private sector, associations, or NGOs—can play a crucial role in translating these ideas into concrete actions or maintaining pressure on policymakers.
The challenge is drawing stakeholders into assemblies in ways that enhances their commitment and support for its outcomes but does not undermine process integrity. We’re seeing some interesting experiments – including by Missions Publiques – in bringing stakeholders into dialogue with assembly members in ways that can facilitate broader impact.
A related development is the way in which private enterprises and civil society organisations are commissioning assemblies themselves, independently of government. I’m aware of a Dutch pension fund, for example, that has used a sortition-based assembly to help guide its decisions on ethical and sustainable investments. And civil society initiatives, like the People’s Plan For Nature in the UK and the forthcoming Norwegian project that will consider the global responsibilities of its sovereign wealth fund, are using citizens’ assemblies to open up new political spaces. We’re entering a really interesting phase with very different approaches to how assemblies can maximise social and political impact.
Missions Publiques: For citizens’ assemblies to become a sustainable and influential tool in climate governance, you argue that it’s necessary to build a citizen movement around them. Could you elaborate on this idea and its objective?
Graham Smith: I firmly believe that for citizens’ assemblies to take root in climate governance, they cannot remain isolated experiments or technocratic devices. They need to be part of a broader dynamic, supported by a genuine social movement. This movement would play a dual role: on one hand, it would strengthen the legitimacy of assemblies among decision-makers and the public; on the other, it would provide continuous momentum beyond one-off projects.
Assemblies are too often seen as “experiments” or mechanisms disconnected from the political system. To change this, we need to normalize their use, making them a regular feature of our politics, whether this is like we’re seeing in Ireland, or more permanent bodies in Belgium and beyond, or through civil society-led assemblies.
We also need to mobilize popular support. We’re starting to see something like a broader movement emerge, one that includes policy actors, civil society organisations, academics, artists, activists and regular citizens. This can help demonstrate a social demand and build a base of support that protects them from political fluctuations. Finally, creating collective memory is crucial. Assemblies often produce recommendations that fade from public consciousness. A movement can keep these ideas alive in the public debate and remind people of their citizen-driven origins.
We live in a fascinating time. Assemblies are expanding beyond traditional public policy domains. Universities are exploring their role in internal governance, artists are celebrating their potential as “anti-polarization machines,” and even private companies are getting involved. Assemblies alone cannot resolve complex crises like climate change, but as democratic innovations, they show us a different way of doing things is possible.
