


### 3.4 Citizens' Assemblies (15%)

#### 3.4.1 Complete Absence of Citizens' Assembly Mechanisms

**Note on Complete Absence of Citizens' Assembly Mechanisms:**
When a country has no legal provisions for organizing citizens' assemblies (either legislative or policy issue), the score for the entire Citizens' Assemblies category shall be 0%. This represents a complete absence of this form of direct democratic participation. The 0% score for this category would then contribute to the overall DFI calculation accordingly, reducing the total possible DFI score by the full 15% weight allocated to this category.

#### 3.4.2 Government-Initiated Citizens' Assemblies

##### Special Scoring for Countries Without Legal Provisions

**When a country has no legal provisions for organizing citizens' assemblies (either legislative or policy issue), the score for the entire Citizens' Assemblies category is typically 0%.**

However, an exception exists to recognize countries that have implemented citizens' assemblies in practice despite lacking formal legal provisions:

> When general legal provisions exist allowing for public consultations in the form of national-level citizens' assemblies, AND there is demonstrated track record of implementing government-initiated national level citizens' assemblies, the score for the whole Citizens' Assemblies category is:
> 
> - **1% total** (not 1% of 15%) if there has been 1 such citizens' assembly
> - **3% total** (not 3% of 15%) if there have been 2 or more such citizens' assemblies

##### Important Calculation Clarification

The 1% or 3% score is the **final, total contribution to the DFI score**, not a percentage of the category weight to be multiplied by 15%. This recognizes the practical implementation of citizens' assemblies even in the absence of formal legal provisions.

##### Example: Germany

**Assessment**: Germany has no specific legal provisions for citizen-initiated assemblies (spring 2025), but has organized two government-initiated national-level citizens' assemblies (Climate Assembly 2019-2020 and Democracy Assembly 2021).

**Incorrect calculation**:
- 3% (for two assemblies) × 15% (category weight) = 0.45% contribution to total DFI

**Correct calculation**:
- 3% (fixed total score for two assemblies) = 3% contribution to total DFI

In this case, Germany receives a total of 3% for the entire Citizens' Assemblies category, not 0.45%.

##### Example: Country X

**Assessment**: Country X has no legal provisions for citizens' assemblies and has never organized a government-initiated citizens' assembly.

**Correct calculation**:
- 0% (no legal provisions or implementations) = 0% contribution to total DFI

#### 3.4.3 Clarification on Official Government-Initiated Citizens' Assemblies

When evaluating whether a country receives the 1% or 3% score for government-initiated citizens' assemblies without formal legal provisions, it is essential to apply strict criteria for what constitutes a qualifying citizens' assembly:

##### Official Authority Requirement

**Only citizens' assemblies initiated by official national public authorities qualify for the 1% or 3% score.** Specifically:

- **Qualifying initiators**:
  - National legislature/parliament
  - Head of state/president
  - Prime minister/cabinet
  - Formal government ministries or departments
  
- **Non-qualifying initiators** (do not count toward the 1% or 3% score):
  - Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
  - Universities or academic institutions
  - Private foundations
  - Civil society organizations
  - Regional or local governments (unless explicitly authorized by national authorities)
  - Think tanks or research institutions

##### Initiation vs. Reception (clarification)

The qualifying test is **initiation** by a national public authority, not reception of a civil-society-organised assembly's recommendations. This distinction matters because many modern citizens' assemblies have hybrid structures where civil-society organisations handle operational delivery and state authorities engage downstream. The rule is:

- **Initiation** means the national public authority commissions the assembly, sets its mandate, funds it (in whole or in substantial part), and formally establishes it through an act in its official capacity (parliamentary resolution, executive decree, ministerial commission). The assembly exists *because* the authority created it.
- **Reception** means the national public authority receives the recommendations of an assembly that was created by some other body. This may be substantive (parliamentary committees engaging with the report) or formal (the speaker accepting the report at a public ceremony) — but it is downstream of an initiation that occurred elsewhere.
- **Patronage** (e.g., German "Schirmherrschaft", honorific endorsement by a current or former office-holder) is neither initiation nor reception. It is symbolic association without the authority commissioning, mandating, or funding the assembly.

Patronage and reception, even when combined, do **not** convert a civil-society-initiated assembly into a government-initiated one. Only actual initiation qualifies.

##### Engagement modes that look like initiation but aren't

Civil-society organisers commonly secure various forms of state engagement to lend their assembly institutional weight. None of the following converts the assembly into a government-initiated one for §3.4.3 purposes:

- **Honorary patronage** ("patronat honorowy", "Schirmherrschaft", or equivalent): a current or former office-holder lending their name to the assembly without commissioning, mandating, or funding it.
- **Substantive partnership** ("partner merytoryczny", "in cooperation with the Ministry of X", participation by department representatives in the educational or deliberative phases): the ministry contributes expertise and engagement throughout, but did not establish the assembly through a commissioning act.
- **Recommendation receipt and committee meetings**: a minister formally receives the recommendations; parliamentary committees meet with assembly representatives. These are downstream events; they do not change who initiated the assembly.
- **Funding by an international NGO secured by the civil-society organiser before the government engaged**: external NGO funding (e.g., People Powered) does not constitute government commissioning even if government engagement followed.
- **Approach pattern**: the civil-society organiser approached the government, not the other way around. Phrasing like "*the team approached the Ministry, which had already been exploring deliberative tools*" identifies the civil-society organiser as the principal of the assembly; the government is a participant or recipient.

The qualifying test is whether **the assembly exists because government commissioned it**. If the assembly would have existed without the government's engagement (because the civil-society organiser had already secured organisational capacity, funding, and methodological design), then any government engagement is downstream — and the assembly is civil-society-initiated regardless of how substantive the engagement looks.

**Anchor cases**:

- **Ireland — Citizens' Assembly model (qualifies)**: The Oireachtas (Irish parliament) commissions the assembly by formal resolution, sets the mandate, funds it, and is obliged to respond to the recommendations. This is the canonical qualifying pattern.
- **Germany 2019 Bürgerrat Demokratie (does not qualify)**: Organised by Mehr Demokratie e.V. (NGO) and Schöpflin Stiftung (private foundation), with honorific Schirmherrschaft by the Bundestagspräsident and formal reception of the recommendations on 15 November 2019. The assembly existed because the NGO + foundation created it; the Bundestagspräsident's role was patronage and reception, not initiation.
- **Germany 2023-24 Bürgerrat Ernährung im Wandel (qualifies)**: Bundestag established it by formal Einsetzungsbeschluss under §56a GO-BT (Bundestag-Drucksache 20/6709, 10 May 2023). The assembly existed because the Bundestag created it; civil-society partners handled operational delivery on commission from the Bundestag.

##### Documentation Requirements

When claiming the 1% or 3% special score for government-initiated citizens' assemblies, the assessment must provide:

1. The **official government documentation** establishing the citizens' assembly
2. The **specific national authority** that initiated it
3. **Evidence of implementation** including:
   - Selection methodology for participants
   - Scope and mandate
   - Final report or recommendations
   - Government's formal receipt of the assembly's work

##### Example Verification

**Qualifying Example A** (legislature-initiated): Germany's Bürgerrat Ernährung im Wandel (2023-24)
- Initiated by: Deutscher Bundestag, by formal Einsetzungsbeschluss under §56a GO-BT
- Evidence: Bundestag-Drucksache 20/6709 (resolution of 10 May 2023) establishing the assembly with explicit mandate, member count, selection method, and timeframe
- Implementation: 160 randomly selected citizens, scientific advisory board, nine recommendations submitted to Bundestagspräsidentin Bas on 14 February 2024
- Qualifies because: Direct initiation by the national legislature under a formal procedural framework

**Qualifying Example B** (head-of-legislature commissioning): Germany's Bürgerrat "Deutschlands Rolle in der Welt" (2020-21)
- Initiated by: Bundestagspräsident Wolfgang Schäuble, in his official capacity as constitutional officer of the Bundestag (Article 40 GG)
- Evidence: Assembly framed and published as "Bürgerrat im Auftrag des Bundestagspräsidenten" ("on behalf of the Bundestag President"); commissioning act by the Bundestagspräsident's office
- Implementation: 169 randomly selected participants, ten online sessions Jan-Mar 2021, recommendations handed to the Bundestagspräsident on 19 March 2021
- Qualifies because: Initiation by a national legislature officer in official capacity, even in the absence of (then-)formal procedural framework

**Non-Qualifying Example A** (academic): Switzerland's Demoscan Project (2019)
- Initiated by: University of Geneva with NGO partners
- Result: Does not count — initiated by an academic institution, not a national public authority

**Non-Qualifying Example B** (NGO with state patronage and reception): Germany's Bürgerrat Demokratie (2019) and Bürgerrat Klima (2021)
- Initiated by: Mehr Demokratie e.V. (NGO) + Schöpflin Stiftung (foundation) for Demokratie 2019; BürgerBegehren Klimaschutz e.V. + WissenschaftsPlattform Klimaschutz for Klima 2021
- State involvement: Honorific Schirmherrschaft by the Bundestagspräsident (Demokratie) or by a former Bundespräsident (Klima); formal reception of recommendations by the sitting Bundestagspräsident in both cases
- Result: Does not count — civil-society-initiated; honorific patronage and post-hoc reception are not initiation. The assemblies existed because the NGOs created them, not because the state commissioned them.

**Non-Qualifying Example C** (research consortium with no government commissioning): Sweden's Medborgarråd om Klimatet / FAIRTRANS (2024)
- Initiated by: FAIRTRANS research programme (Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University, University of Gävle, Uppsala University, Lund University, IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, plus civil-society partners)
- State involvement: None at the initiation stage; the assembly was independent of government and had no formal government response obligation
- Result: Does not count — research-programme-organised, not government-commissioned. The assembly's substantive sortition, expert input, and structured deliberation are real, but Criterion 4 (government initiation) fails.

**Non-Qualifying Example D** (civil-society NGO coalition with parliamentary recommendation receipt): Norway's Framtidspanelet / Future Panel (January–April 2025)
- Initiated by: Seven civil-society organisations — WWF Norway, Save the Children Norway, Caritas Norway, Framtiden i våre hender (The Future in Our Hands), the Norwegian Children and Youth Council, and the think tank Langsikt
- State involvement: Final report presented to the Norwegian Parliament (Storting) on 13 May 2025; assembly representatives met with the Storting Finance Committee in June 2025 (representatives from Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats, and Green Party participated)
- Result: Does not count — the seven NGOs commissioned and ran the assembly; parliamentary committee engagement and report presentation are downstream reception. Same disqualification pattern as Sweden FAIRTRANS.

**Non-Qualifying Example E** (civil-society organiser with substantive ministry partnership and minister receipt): Poland's Panel Obywatelski Dzieci i Młodzieży / Youth Citizens' Panel (March 2025)
- Initiated by: Fundacja Pole Dialogu (Field of Dialogue Foundation, civil-society organisation), with UNICEF Polska as co-organiser
- Funding: People Powered (international participatory-democracy NGO); funding was secured by Pole Dialogu before approaching the Ministry
- State involvement: Honorary patronage and substantive partnership ("patronat honorowy" + "partner merytoryczny") by the Ministry of Digital Affairs, with active participation by department representatives throughout the educational and deliberative phases; recommendations formally submitted to the Minister of Digital Affairs in May 2025
- Approach pattern: Pole Dialogu approached the Ministry (per People Powered's case study: "*The team approached the Ministry of Digital Affairs, which had already been exploring deliberative tools and was impressed that funding for the process had already been provided by People Powered*")
- Result: Does not count — civil-society-initiated. Ministry partnership, honorary patronage, departmental participation in the assembly's working sessions, and minister-level recommendation receipt are all downstream of an initiation that occurred at the civil-society level. The assembly existed because Pole Dialogu created it; the Ministry was a participant and recipient, not the principal.

The Sweden FAIRTRANS, Norway Framtidspanelet, and Poland PODiM cases are structurally identical in §3.4.3 terms despite differing in the depth of state engagement: **engagement intensity does not change initiation source**. Whether the state acts as honorary patron only (Norway), substantive partner with departmental participation (Poland), or essentially absent at the initiation stage (Sweden), the civil-society organiser remains the principal of the assembly, and the assembly does not qualify.

##### Assessment Notation

When documenting this component, clearly note:
```
CITIZENS' ASSEMBLY QUALIFICATION CHECK:
Formal legal provisions: [Yes/No]
If No: Government-initiated assemblies identified: [List]
For each assembly:
 - Initiating authority: [Specific national public authority]
 - Official documentation: [Citation of formal establishment document]
 - Qualifying status: [Qualifies/Does not qualify]
 - Reason: [Explanation]
Total qualifying assemblies: [Number]
Score determination: [0%, 1%, or 3%]
```

This strict interpretation ensures methodological consistency and prevents overstating the presence of citizens' assemblies in national democratic systems.

#### 3.4.4 Legal Effect Assessment
**Documentation requirements:**
- Constitutional or legal provisions specifying binding or consultative nature
- Procedural details on implementation of assembly recommendations
- If used, evidence of recommendation implementation rates