Climate Citizens Assemblies

Description

As in assemblies, power is always at play and facilitators strive to ensure that everyone is heard. Here, however, let’s look at the power of commissioning institutions and organisers. This is particularly critical when CCAs are commissioned by state institutions, as they follow an inherent rationale (conditioned by the dependency on the market economy and its lobbies). What they consider acceptable or not constitutes the corridor within which assemblies operate. Against this backdrop, facilitators are hired, committee members and advisers are selected, objectives and briefings are defined, assembly sessions and formats are planned, and support for participants, outreach, and follow-up are organised, etc. This restricts the agenda, discourse, and outcomes. Additionally, dominant societal attitudes and dynamics come into play. E.g., scientists should be motivated to contribute, but the academic system does not incentivise such engagement. Moreover, due to their specialisation, many scientists are unable to contribute to broad issues. All this is subject to framings that determine what can be legitimately discussed and done. The interplay of self-empowering participants and well-networked (social movement) groups can counter these tendencies and widen the space of manoeuvre. Also, an oversight group of independent experts and civil society representatives can safeguard independence and openness.

How-To & Examples

In Catalonia a formal oversight group (Grup Motor) of independent experts and civil society representatives accompanied the process from design to completion, safeguarding procedural integrity. KNOCA guidance: governance of climate assemblies, Report on set-up and facilitation of Climate Assemblies, p.29

In South Tyrol the local Scientists for Future were able to influence the composition of the Expert Advisory Board, thanks to their network woven over years that goes across (research) institutions and the climate movement. Furthermore participants were included into oversight bodies (e.g., steering committees or advisory boards) to redistribute decision-making power. Being aware of possible power distributions created by the practicalities of the assembly . Taking this into consideration, in the Belfast Codesign Framework Belfast Codesign Framework participants did not wear lanyards (Belfast Codesign Framework https://yoursay.belfastcity.gov.uk/a-co-design-framework-for-belfast), pp. 30,31.

Literature & Sources

Curato, N., Hammond, M., & Min, J. B. (2019). Power in Deliberative Democracy: Norms, Fo-rums, Systems. Springer International Publishing.

Demirović, A. (2012). Reform, Revolution, Transformation. Journal für Entwicklungspolitik, 3, 16–42.

Gaventa, J. (1980). Power and powerlessness: Quiescence and rebellion in an Appalachian

valley. Clarendon Press.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. (Hoare,Q. & G.Nowell-Smith, Eds.). International Publishers.

Habermann, F. (2024). Overcoming Exploitation and Externalisation: An Intersectional Theory

of Hegemony and Transformation. Taylor & Francis.

Hirsch, J. (2005). Materialistische Staatstheorie: Transformationsprozesse des kapitalistischen

Staatensystems. VSA.

Holloway, J. (2022). Hope in Hopeless Times. Pluto Press.

Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Est- lund, D., Føllesdal, A., Fung, A., Lafont, C., Manin,B., & Martí, J. L. (2010). The Place of Self-Interest and the Role of Power in Deliberative Democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 64–100.h!ps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00344.x

Mendelberg, T., & Oleske, J. (2000). Race and Public Deliberation. Political Communication, 17(2), 169–191. h!ps://doi. org/10.1080/10584600019846

Morriss, P. (2002). Power: A philosophical analysis (2nd ed.). Manchester University Press.

OECD (2020). Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave. OECD Publishing. h!ps://doi. org/10.1787/339306da-en

OECD Deliberative Democracy Da- abase (2023). Retrieved October 29, 2024, from h!ps://medium.com/partic- ipo/2023-trends-in-deliberative-democracy-oecd-database-update-c8802935f116

Pansardi, P., & Bindi, M. (2021). The new concepts of power? Power-over, power-to, and power-with. Journal of Political Power, 14(1), 51–71. h!ps://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2021.1877001

Partzsch, L. (2017). ‘Power with’ and ‘power to’ in environmental politics and the transition to sustainability. Environmental Politics, 26(2), 193–211. h!ps://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2016.1256961

Pitkin, H. F. (1972). Wittgenstein and Justice. University of California Press.

Poulantzas, N. (1978). State, Power, Socialism. New Left Books.

Rye, D. (2015). The concept of power in the analysis of organisations with social and political goals. Journal of Political Power, 8(3), 301–320.h!ps://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2015.1095846

Sanders, L. M. (1997). Against Deliberation. Political Theory, 25(3), 347–376. h!ps://doi.org/10.1177/0090591797025003002

Kris Krois, María Menéndez-Blanco, Anja Salzer STARS. (n.d.). South Tyrol Alliance for Research in Sustainability. Retrieved August 17, 2024, from h!ps://www.research-alliance-for-sustain- ability.it/

Salzer, A. (2024a). Umfrage zur Evaluierung des Klimabürgerrat (KBR). Unpublished manuscript,Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy.

Salzer, A. (2024b). Observation Protocol: Klimabürgerrat (KBR) IV, 02/06/24. Unpublished manuscript, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy.

Wright, E. O. (2010). Envisioning Real Utopias. Verso.

Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford University Press. 10

Power is multi-dimensional and shapes how decisions are made and who can influence them. Power is central to understanding how CCAs can contribute to systemic transformation! Superficial or shallow examinations of power in CCAs risk drawing incorrect conclusions about whether a democratic intervention like a CA can truly progress systemic change. (source: CAST Guidelines: How can citizens’ assemblies help navigate the systemic transformations required by the polycrisis?)

Could we here simplify the content of the paper you wrote about power in CCAs? >> more for the example section

AN: as requested by >< here is a possible development of the topic from an organisational perspective, even though I do not think we can have both perspectives within a single card.

CCAs are not purely rational arenas; they act, structuring themselves as systems of rules, attention, and institutional logics characterized by ambiguous and sometimes conflicting goals. Coalitions may easily form around problems, solutions, identities, and interpretations. Decisions often emerge from negotiation among shifting alliances rather than from linear rational consensus. Coalitions are not necessarily problematic — they are natural features of collective decision-making. The key issue is whether they remain transparent, permeable, and deliberative rather than exclusionary. CCAs are also sensemaking environments. Participants construct shared interpretations under ambiguity. Coalitions often crystallize around particular frames — shared ways of interpreting what the problem really is and what can be legitimately done. Power operates through stabilizing certain interpretations while marginalizing others.

The CAST Guidelines: How can citizens’ assemblies help navigate the systemic transformations required by the polycrisis? address three forms of power essential for organisations and governance to create truly inclusive spaces and enable meaningful systemic transformation:

  1. Visible power: formal rules, structures, and decision-making processes.
  2. Hidden power: who sets the agenda and whose voices are heard.
  3. Invisible power: norms, beliefs, and assumptions that shape what people see as possible.

The HowTo section inspired by the organizational approach, may cover the following recommendations: