Searching for Determinants of Support for Mini-Publics: Insights from a Polish Survey

• Authors: Paulina Pospieszna

Abstracts

EN

The erosion of liberal democracy has led to decreased civic engagement and trust in traditional institutions, prompting a search for innovative democratic solutions. Deliberative mini-publics, such as citizens’ assemblies, offer a promising avenue for addressing these challenges by engaging citizens in informed discussions and decision-making processes. However, research on these mechanisms in Central and Eastern Europe, particularly in Poland, remains limited. This study aims to fill this gap by examining Polish attitudes towards mini-publics and their potential to enhance democratic decision-making. Using data from a survey experiment conducted in February 2024, this study explores the relationship between satisfaction with democracy and other political attitudes toward support for minipublics. The findings suggest that individuals who perceive themselves as having influence over government actions are less likely to support mini-publics. Whereas satisfaction with democracy is positively linked with support for innovative decision-making mechanisms, socio-demographic factors do not have explanatory power. Overall, this research provides valuable insights for practitioners and scholars interested in promoting inclusive and participatory forms of governance in Poland and beyond.

Keywords

EN

deliberative mini-publics; citizens’ assemblies; Central and Eastern Europe; Poland; satisfaction with democracy; political attitudes; public opinion; survey experiment

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek
• Journal: Polish Political Science Yearbook
• Year: 2025
• Issue: 2(54)
• Pages: 69-89

Dates

published

2025

Contributors

author

Paulina Pospieszna

• Adam Mickiewicz University (Poland)

• https://orcid.org/0000000248921138

References

• Armingeon, K. (2007). Political participation and associational involvement. In Citizenship and involvement in European democracies (pp. 382–407). Routledge.
• Bernhagen, P., & Marsh, M. (2007). Voting and protesting: Explaining citizen participation in old and new European democracies. Democratisation, 14(1), 44–72.
• Bertsou, E., & Caramani, D. (2022). People have not had enough of experts: Technocratic attitudes among citizens in nine European democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 66(1), 5–23.
• Bertsou, E., & Pastorella, G. (2017). Technocratic attitudes: A citizens’ perspective of expert decisionmaking. West European Politics, 40(2), 430–458.
• Boulianne, S. (2019). Building faith in democracy: Deliberative events, political trust and efficacy. Political Studies, 67(1), 4–30.
• Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Karp, J. A. (2007). Enraged or engaged? Preferences for direct citizen participation in affluent democracies. Political Research Quarterly, 60(3), 351–362.
• Canache, D., Mondak, J. J., & Seligson, M. A. (2001). Meaning and measurement in cross-national research on satisfaction with democracy. Public opinion quarterly, 65(4), 506–528.
• Christensen, H. S., & von Schoultz, Å. (2019). Ideology and deliberation: An analysis of public support for deliberative practices in Finland.International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 31(1), 178–194.
• Craig, S. C., & Maggiotto, M. A. (1982). Measuring political efficacy. Political Methodology, 85–109.
• Curato, N., Dryzek, J. S., Ercan, S. A., Hendriks, C. M., & Niemeyer, S. (2017). Twelve key findings in deliberative democracy research. Daedalus, 146(3), 28–38.
• Curato, N., & Farrell, D. (2021). Deliberative mini-publics: Core design features. Policy Press.
• Dahlberg, S., Linde, J., & Holmberg, S. (2015). Democratic discontent in old and new democracies: Assessing the importance of democratic input and governmental output. Political Studies, 63(1_suppl), 18–37.
• Dalton, R. J. (2004). Democratic challenges, democratic choices: The erosion of political support in advanced industrial democracies.
• Dryzek, J. S. (2010). Rhetoric in democracy: A systemic appreciation. Political theory, 38(3), 319–339.
• Elstub, S., & Escobar, O. (2019). Defining and typologising democratic innovations. Handbook of democratic innovation and governance, 11–31.
• Ferrín, M., & Kriesi, H. (Eds.). (2016). How Europeans view and evaluate democracy. Oxford University Press.
• Fishkin, J., Siu, A., Diamond, L., & Bradburn, N. (2021). Is deliberation an antidote to extreme partisan polarization? Reflections on “America in One Room”. American Political Science Review, 115(4), 1464–1481.
• Font, J., Wojcieszak, M., & Navarro, C. J. (2015). Participation, representation and expertise: Citizen preferences for political decision-making processes. Political Studies, 63(1_suppl), 153–172.
• Fung, A. (2003). Deliberative democracy and international labor standards. Governance, 16(1), 51–71.
• Geissel, B., & Newton, K. (Eds.). (2012). Evaluating Democratic Innovations: New and old forms of (direct) democracy. Routledge.
• Gerwin, M. (2018). Citizens’ Assemblies: A Guide to democracy that works. Otwarty Plan.
• Gherghina, S., Ekman, J., & Podolian, O. (Eds.). (2020). Democratic Innovations in Central and Eastern Europe. Routledge.
• Gherghina, S., & Geissel, B. (2020). Support for direct and deliberative models of democracy in the UK: understanding the difference. Political Research Exchange, 2(1), 1809474.
• Goldberg, S., & Bächtiger, A. (2023). Catching the ‘deliberative wave’? How (disaffected) citizens assess deliberative citizen forums. British Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 239–247.
• Grönlund, K., Herne, K., & Setälä, M. (2015). Does enclave deliberation polarize opinions? Political Behavior, 37, 995–1020.
• Grönlund, K., Setälä, M., & Herne, K. (2010). Deliberation and civic virtue: Lessons from a citizen deliberation experiment. European Political Science Review, 2(1), 95–117.
• Hayes, B. C., & Bean, C. S. (1993). Political efficacy: A comparative study of the United States, West Germany, Great Britain and Australia. European Journal of Political research, 23(3), 261–280.
• Knobloch, K., Gastil, J., & Knobloch, K. R. (2022). How Deliberative Experiences Shape Subjective Outcomes: A Study of Fifteen Minipublics from 2010–2018. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 18(1).
• Kübler, D., Bernhard, L., Colombo, C., Heimann, A., & Stojanović, N. (2023). Democratic innovations in a context of extensive direct democracy: Results from a survey experiment on citizens’ perceptions of mini-publics in Switzerland. Paper presented at the ECPR conference, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
• Linde, J., & Ekman, J. (2003). Satisfaction with democracy: A note on a frequently used indicator in comparative politics. European journal of political research, 42(3), 391–408.
• Neblo, M. A., Esterling, K. M., Kennedy, R. P., Lazer, D. M., & Sokhey, A. E. (2010). Who wants to deliberate – and why? American Political Science Review, 104(3), 566–583.
• Newton, K. (2001). Trust, social capital, civil society, and democracy. International political science review, 22(2), 201–214.
• Niemeyer, S. (2014). Scaling up deliberation to mass publics: Harnessing mini-publics in a deliberative system. Deliberative mini-publics: Involving citizens in the democratic process, 177–202.
• Niemeyer, S., & Dryzek, J. S. (2007). The ends of deliberation: meta‐consensus and inter‐subjective rationality as ideal outcomes. Swiss political science review, 13(4), 497–526.
• Norris, P. (Ed.). (1999). Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government. OUP Oxford.
• Norris, P. (2011). Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge University Press.
• Nye Jr, J. S. (1997). In government we don’t trust. Foreign Policy, 99–111.
• OECD. (2020). Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions Catching the Deliberative Wave.
• Paulis, E., & Ognibene, M. (2023). Satisfied unlike me? How the perceived difference with close network contacts prevents radical and protest voting. Acta politica, 58(2), 237–265.
• Pharr, S. J., & Putnam, R. D. (Eds.). (2000). Disaffected democracies: What’s troubling the trilateral countries?. Princeton University Press.
• Pilet, J. B., Bedock, C., Talukder, D., & Rangoni, S. (2024). Support for deliberative mini-publics among the losers of representative democracy. British Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 295–312.
• Podgórska-Rykała, J. (2020). Panele obywatelskie jako metoda deliberacji decyzyjnej. C.H. Beck.
• Podgórska-Rykała, J. (2024). Deliberative Democracy, Public Policy, and Local Government (Public Administration and Public Policy Series). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
• Pospieszna, P., & Pietrzyk-Reeves, D. (2024). Democratic Innovations and Shrinking Civic Space. In P. McMahon, P. Pickering & D. Pietrzyk-Reeves (Eds.), Activism in Hard Times in Central and Eastern Europe. Routledge.
• Setälä, M., & Smith, G. (2018). Mini-publics and deliberative democracy. The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy, 300–314.
• Siu, A., & Przybylska, A. (2010). Deliberative Democracy in Poland: Engaging the Citizens of Poznan Through the First Polish Deliberative Polling® Project. In the APSA 2010 Annual Meeting Paper.
• Smith, G. (2012). Deliberative democracy and mini-publics. In Evaluating Democratic Innovations (pp. 90–111). Routledge.
• Smith, G. (2021). Can democracy safeguard the future? John Wiley & Sons.
• Smith, G., & Setälä, M. (2018). Mini-publics and deliberative democracy. In A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge & M. Warren (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy (pp. 299–314). Oxford University Press.
• Smith, G., & Wales, C. (1999). The theory and practice of citizens’ juries. Policy & Politics, 27(3), 295–308.
• Ufel, W. (2022). I Wrocławski Panel Obywatelski jako przykład zastosowania praktyki deliberacyjnej. Studia z Polityki Publicznej, 9(4), 95–114.
• Ufel, W., & Rodziewicz, A. (2024). Narada obywatelska jako deliberacyjna innowacja społeczna – analiza przykładu wrocławskiego. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska, sectio K–Politologia, 30(2), 161–178.
• Vráblíková, K. (2016). What kind of democracy?: participation, inclusiveness and contestation. Routledge.
• Webb, P. (2013). Who is willing to participate? Dissatisfied democrats, stealth democrats and populists in the United Kingdom. European Journal of Political Research, 52(6), 747–772.

Identifiers

DOI

10.15804/ppsy202519

Biblioteka Nauki

62644811