How deliberation makes better citizens: The Danish Deliberative

This article presents results from a Danish national Deliberative Poll on the single European currency. A representative sample of 364 Danish citizens assembled to deliberate on Denmark’s participation in the single currency. As a quasi-experiment, the Deliberative Poll is an example of deliberative democracy. Four research questions regarding these deliberative processes are analyzed: openness and access, the quality of deliberation, efficiency and effectiveness, and publicity and accountability. The participants’ responses reflect a deliberative process characterized by considerable changes in political opinions as the Poll proceeds, increase in level of knowledge and an improved ability to form reasoned opinions. A mutual understanding on the subject matter prevailed among the participants.At the same time, self-interest and domination also appeared during the deliberative process. The article emphasizes the need for further elaboration of the theory of deliberative democracy so that it better reflects these features of ‘real-life’ politics. Introduction: The Deliberative Poll in Denmark In 2000, the Danes had to decide whether to join the single European currency (the euro). In the 28 September referendum, 53 per cent of them voted against joining the single currency. The results of opinion polls up to the referendum showed a close race. One month prior to the referendum, a Deliberative Poll® on Denmark’s participation in the single currency was held in the city of Odense. A representative sample of 364 Danish citizens participated. The aim of the Poll was to create a setting for studying what happens when people meet and discuss a complex issue. Of particular interest was the very fact that the participants would be divided on the issue beforehand. During the Deliberative Poll, their opinions were polled four times. The participants represented a panel study of representative citizens in what can be seen as a quasiexperiment on deliberation. By analyzing the deliberation, opinions and cognitive skills of the participants, this article seeks to contribute insights into the dynamics of deliberative processes. The Deliberative Poll as a quasi-experiment is related to ‘deliberative democracy’. In this context, the article focuses on four research questions with European Journal of Political Research 46: 531–556, 2007 531 © 2007 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2007 (European Consortium for Political Research) Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA respect to deliberative processes: openness and access to the deliberative process, the quality of deliberation, efficiency and effectiveness, and publicity and accountability. The Deliberative Poll is just one of several methods that have been developed over the past decades for involving citizens and making their voices known to the political elite. As opposed to more formalized channels of representative democracy, these methods of citizen involvement are ad hoc, non-institutionalized, deal with a limited agenda of issues, independent of the electoral process and organized primarily by someone other than the citizens themselves. A Deliberative Poll is based on a simple idea:bring together a representative group of people, let them deliberate with each other and with politicians and experts, and poll their opinions before, during and after the process (t0-t1-t2).The national Danish Deliberative Poll was based on James S.Fishkin’s model (1988, 1991, 1997). Prior to the Danish Poll, six Deliberative Polls on a national level have been conducted: one in the United States, three in Great Britain, one in Bulgaria and one in Australia. The Danish Deliberative Poll process was launched with interviews with a representative sample of citizens, selected by simple random sampling (t0). At the same time, the respondents were invited to participate in a weekend gathering with all expenses paid.At this event, they were given the opportunity to discuss issues related to the European Union (EU) and the single currency with other participants, politicians and experts. Prior to the weekend meeting, participants received a background paper presenting arguments for and against Denmark’s enrolment in the single currency.During the deliberative weekend, the participants met in small groups and in plenary sessions with the leaders of the Danish political parties and leading experts on the EU and the single currency. The small groups were randomly composed, consisted of 18–20 citizens, and each group was assigned a trained moderator.At the plenary sessions, the participants had the opportunity to pose questions to politicians and experts about the single currency process. The participants’ opinions were polled through self-administered questionnaires at the beginning (t1) and at the end of the weekend (t2),and by telephone three months after the Deliberative Poll (t3). The questions asked in t1, t2 and t3 were to a large extent similar to the questions asked in t0. The Danish Deliberative Poll was methodologically innovative (see Hansen 2004; Hansen & Andersen 2004). First, by polling the participants’ opinions four times, it was possible to differentiate between the effect of the materials given to them prior to the weekend (the difference between t0 and t1), the effect of the deliberative weekend (the difference between t1 and t2), and the long-term effects of participation in the Deliberative Poll (by comparing t3 to t0-t2; see also Table 1). A representative control sample of citizens surveyed at the same time as the 364 participants were gathered at the Delib532 vibeke normann andersen & kasper m. hansen © 2007 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2007 (European Consortium for Political Research) Table 1. Recruitment of participants for the Deliberative Poll on the euro in 2000 Phase Activity Date Number of participants t0 Recruitment interview (telephone interview) 1–8 August 1,702 Acceptance of participation in the Deliberative Poll 8 August 732 – Yes, definite participation 206 – Possibly participation 526 Information folder on the event sent to participants 8–11 August 732 Second invitation by telephone to the Deliberative Poll 16 August 699 – Yes, definite participation 375 – Possibly participation 81 – No participation 243 – Respondents who could not be reached 33 Programme and information sent to participants 14–18 August 489 Contacted by phone to confirm participation 17–22 August 489 Number of enrolled participants 22 August 396 Tickets sent to participants 21–25 August Number of enrolled participants 25 August 386 t1/t2 Number of effective participants in the Deliberative Poll 26–27 August 364 t3 Number participants re-interviewed (telephone interview) 27 November–16 December 355 Note: Television spots on the event were shown daily on national Danish television in the week prior to the event. The recruitment interviews (t0) were conducted by PLS Rambøll Management by telephone. The response rate was 60 per cent, with seven call-backs. The sampling was conducted through simple random sampling on telephone numbers.The t1 and t2 surveys were conducted through self-administered questionnaires. The t3 survey was conducted by trained students at the Department of Political Science, University of Southern Denmark, and supervised by the authors of this article. At a later stage, the surveys will be available at the Danish Data Archives. how deliberation makes better citizens 533 © 2007 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2007 (European Consortium for Political Research) erative Poll (24 August–3 September, N = 1,005) allows us to assess the effect of deliberation during the weekend and the effect of other factors such as the public debate more generally (the difference between t1 and t2, t0 and t1 compared to the development in the control group between t0 and t2). Second, the set-up of the Danish Deliberative Poll makes it possible to assess the deliberative process through a thorough evaluation of the participants’ deliberation in the small groups. A method for evaluating the deliberative process was developed in order to assess not just changes in opinions and development of participants’ knowledge due to the Deliberative Poll, but also the deliberative process itself. Our approach thus differs from that of Fishkin (1997), who often limited his analysis to the increase of knowledge and changes in opinions among the participants. In order to assess the Deliberative Poll, the following section will deal with four key problems raised by the theory of deliberative democracy (see also the four research questions outlined in Papadopoulos & Warin’s introduction to this special issue). An assessment of deliberative democracy Democratic systems are usually based upon a number of different channels such as political parties and organizations through which citizens can express their views. Today, one of the main challenges to the institutionalized version of representative democracy is the presumed increasing democratic deficit between the elite and the lay public. As an extra-parliamentary institution, a Deliberative Poll allows for a range of different experiences to be brought into the political process. It facilitates reflection and exchange of viewpoints to be important aspects of the political process (Hansen & Pedersen 2001). In the normative debate, deliberative democrats such as Bohman (1996), Gutmann & Thompson (1996) have often argued for the need to create alternative arenas for public deliberation.The Deliberative Poll is intended to enhance a particular dimension of democracy – the deliberative dimension. On the other hand, it is also a setting for studying processes of deliberation and opinion formation; in this sense the Deliberative Poll is a quasi-experiment. Danish society is particularly divided on issues concerning the EU – a division that stems from the 1972 referendum on Denmark’s accession to the EU (Buch & Hansen 2002). Division on the European issue is found within the public, within the elite, and between the public and the elite. How does a democracy cope with such a lasting division of opinions? By limiting the scope of conflict, resolving the conflict by seeking consensus, pursuing some sort of compromise, enforcing majority rule, proposing different alternatives or simply adopting non-solutions? Within the normative deliberative democratic frame, the aim is to find ways to live with such a division of opinion in a 534 vibeke normann andersen & kasper m. hansen © 2007 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2007 (European Consortium for Political Research) constructive way rather than to simply eliminate or overlook the plurality of opinions (Gutmann & Thompson 1996: 54–55). Many deliberative democrats argue that deliberation should be seen as part of the democratic process in a broad context. According to their argument, deliberation not only takes place among the elected elite, as some representative democratic positions suggest (e.g., Schumpeter 1975); rather, deliberation is seen as an ongoing process among elites and among the public, and between the two groups. The following sections assess the Deliberative Poll in Denmark through the lenses of the four research questions outlined in Papadopoulos & Warin’s introduction to this special issue.The first pair of research questions focuses on the impact of deliberation on the participants. The second pair of questions focuses on the effect of deliberation on the public at large. Openness and access The criteria of openness and access are related to who is able to participate in the Deliberative Poll. To secure inclusiveness, recruitment to the Deliberative Poll was through simple random sampling. In this way, the recruitment process is similar to a national lottery in which every citizen has an equal chance to be selected. The aim is, first of all, to treat all citizens equally. The recruitment process aims to ensure representativeness between the participants and the citizens at large. It relates to Robert A. Dahl’s (1989) principle of ‘inclusiveness’ as all citizens should be given an equal chance to participate (Hansen 2004). Nevertheless, this form of representativeness is not equivalent to a situation where citizens have a right to participate, as would be the case in a referendum or general election. Thus, it can be argued that any recruitment process that fails to grant all citizens the full right to participate compromises the normative criteria that all citizens should be able to participate in the democratic process. The recruitment process of the Deliberative Poll on the euro is summarized in Table 1. The aim of a Deliberative Poll is not to allow the participants to act on behalf of the demos. Accordingly, the outcome of the Deliberative Poll on the euro was not a binding decision. The Deliberative Poll can be considered part of the ongoing public debate prior to the referendum on the euro, in which all Danish citizens had the opportunity to express their preferences via the ballot box. The aim of the Deliberative Poll was to bring different social experiences into the political process by mirroring the demos in terms of sociodemographic characteristics and opinions (Aars & Offerdal 2000: 77). In this sense, the participants mirror the demos at large prior to the deliberative process. When the participants engage in deliberation, their opinions start to mirror the specific process of deliberation and information set up in the how deliberation makes better citizens 535 © 2007 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2007 (European Consortium for Political Research) quasi-experimental context; consequently, the deliberative process among the participants will differ from the deliberative process among the population at large. Initially, at the Danish Deliberative Poll (t0), the participants did to a large extent mirror the Danish population (see Table 2). Table 2. Characteristics of the participants at time of recruitment (percentage) Characteristic Participants in the Deliberative Poll Participants in the Recruitment Survey Gender*,** Male 58 49 Female 42 51 Age* 18–30 years 17 23 31–40 years 23 20 41–60 years 41 34 61+ years 19 23 Education* Lower secondary 12 18 Upper secondary 52 52 University degree 36 30 Sector of work Self-employed 5 4 Private employee 57 58 Public employee 38 38 Place of residence Rural area 5 5 <2,000 inhabitants 10 10 2,001–10,000 inhabitants 18 21 10,001+ inhabitants 67 64 Member of a political party or group Yes 10 9 No 90 91 Expected vote at the referendum* Yes 45 39 No 37 37 Undecided 18 24 Note: A total of 364 citizens participated in the Deliberative Poll. The recruitment survey was representative of the Danish electorate. The data from the recruitment survey (N = 1,702) is weighted according to census data – age, gender and place of residence. * The difference between the groups is significant at p < 0.05 using a Chi test for independence (two-tailed test). ** The mean between the groups is significantly different at p < 0.05 using a test comparing the mean (two-tailed test). Comparison of means between age groups showed no significant differences. 536 vibeke normann andersen & kasper m. hansen © 2007 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2007 (European Consortium for Political Research) Of relevance to the issue of openness and access to the deliberative process is not just the representativeness of the participants, but also whether the involvement of citizens who are not usually active in politics will increase their participation in other political arenas (Mansbridge 1999). As Table 3 shows, however, the participants’ willingness to engage in more institutionalized forms of democracy, exemplified by their wish to run for office, is only moderately affected by the deliberative process, with a small peak at the beginning of the Deliberative Poll (t1). Participating in an innovative experiment such as the Deliberative Poll does not foster participation in traditional representative channels. On the other hand, we find a strong interest in participating in events like the Deliberative Poll. Non-institutionalized, ad hoc and less intense forms of democratic engagement seem to be preferred over the willingness to run for office. By the end of the event, only 2 per cent of the participants did not wish to participate in future Deliberative Polls, and only 1 per cent stated that they would not recommend participation to family or friends. The results suggest that extraparliamentary arenas such as the Deliberative Polls are not just another mechanism for communicating informed opinions to the political elite, but also a mechanism for involving citizens who would otherwise not be willing to engage in well-established institutions of representative democracy. The quality of deliberation The public’s focus on the Deliberative Poll was set at how the participants would vote on the question of Denmark joining the single currency. Some 45 per cent of the participants indicated that they would vote ‘Yes’, 37 per cent ‘No’ and 18 per cent did not take a stand before participating in the Deliberative Poll (t0) (see Table 2). At the end of the Deliberative Poll, 50 per cent indicated they would vote ‘Yes’, 39 per cent ‘No’ and only 11 per cent remained undecided. As a consequence, more people took a stand after having participated in the Deliberative Poll. However, it is not only the outcome of the Deliberative Poll that is of interest here. Equally important is the process by which the outcome was reached – that is, the quality of deliberation. In order to evaluate the quality of deliberation, four factors affecting the process of opinion formation will be discussed. The four factors are: formation of reasoned opinions; minimizing the use of arguments referring to narrow self-interests; increasing mutual understanding among participants; and educating citizens. Deliberation involves an exchange of opinions. Different social experiences are brought together and shared among the participants in the Deliberative Poll. By exchanging opinions and presenting arguments, participants become aware of the consequences of a decision. Through this process, how deliberation makes better citizens 537 © 2007 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2007 (European Consortium for Political Research) Ta bl e 3. W ill in gn es s to ru n fo r of fic e (p er ce nt ag es ) ‘I f yo u w er e as ke d to be a ca nd id at e fo r th e E ur op ea n P ar lia m en t, th e D an is h pa rl ia m en t, or fo r co un ty or ci ty co un ci l w ou ld yo u sa y “Y es ”, “I w ou ld co ns id er it” or “N o” ?’ Y es W ou ld co ns id er it N o U nd ec id ed M ea n N t0 – R ec ru it m en t in te rv ie w 11 33 56 0 27 36 4 t1 – St ar t of D el ib er at iv e Po ll 12 40 44 4 34 ** 36 2 t2 – E nd of th e D el ib er at iv e Po ll 12 36 50 2 31 ** 35 7 t3 – T hr ee m on th s af te r th e D el ib er at iv e Po ll 12 33 55 0 29 * 35 5 N ot e: T he pa rt ic ip an ts ’s ho w ed gr ea te r w ill in gn es s to ru n fo r of fic e th an th e D an is h po pu la ti on at la rg e. T he m ea n is ca lc ul at ed on a sc al e w he re ‘Y es ’= 10 0, ‘W ou ld co ns id er it ’a nd ‘U nd ec id ed ’= 50 an d ‘N o’ = 0. * T he di ff er en ce fr om th e pr ev io us ro un d of qu es ti on s is si gn ifi ca nt at p < 0. 1. ** Si gn ifi ca nt at p < 0. 05 (t w ota ile d te st ). 538 vibeke normann andersen & kasper m. hansen © 2007 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2007 (European Consortium for Political Research) they have the opportunity to form coherent, stable and consistent preferences. However, in the process of exchanging viewpoints, the participants’ opinions may also change. During the Deliberative Poll, between 7 and 28 per cent of the participants altered their views from ‘agree’ to ‘disagree’ or vice versa, with the percentages varying on a number of issues related to the single currency (see Table 4). Changes in opinion were found prior to the deliberative weekend (t0-t1) as well as after the weekend (t2-t3). In this respect, the Deliberative Poll did not create stable opinions in the sense of being unchangeable after the deliberative process.This suggests that political opinions are never stable; rather, there is an ongoing process that continuously develops as people engage with each other. On two of the three questions presented in Table 4, the level of opinion changes is significantly smallest during the Deliberative Poll (t1-t2) and relatively larger in the intervals up to (t0-t1) and after the poll (t2-t3). All phases of the Deliberative Polling process show a strong significant effect on the participants’ opinions (see also Luskin et al. 2002; Sturgis et al. 2005). Nevertheless, the time prior to the event (during which the participants received the balanced information material, followed the debate in the media and engaged in discussions with friends more intensively than usual anticipating their participation in the Deliberative Poll), as well as the time after the event, when the result of the referendum was known, had a larger effect on participants’ opinions than the two days of intense deliberation (Andersen & Hansen 2002; Hansen 2004). This highlights the importance of a method relying on several waves of questioning throughout the process in order to understand the logic of opinion changes in a Deliberative Poll. A change of opinion can never in itself be a qualitative criterion of deliberation. The processes through which these changes come about have to be carefully examined as the changes of opinion can also be a sign of manipulation or group conformity. Some 69 per cent of the participants agreed that the arguments of others were useful in forming their own opinion (see Table 5). Even though up to 28 per cent of the participants changed their opinion, they did not change it in one and the same direction or reach a consensus on the issue. Two dimensions of consensus are outlined in Table 5: consensus on substance and consensus on procedure. A vast majority of the participants (82 per cent) stated that consensus on procedure was obtained in the group sessions, while consensus on the issue was not obtained. This suggests that the changes in opinion were not due to manipulation or group conformity. Deliberation can be defined as a free process in which participants engage in reasoning that forms and potentially alters their preferences (Andersen & Hansen 2002: 80; Hansen & Andersen 2004). In this respect, the quality of deliberation refers to substance as well as procedure. Some 45 per cent of the how deliberation makes better citizens 539 © 2007 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2007 (European Consortium for Political Research) Ta bl e 4. G ro ss ch an ge on at ti tu de it em s (p er ce nt ag e of pa rt ic ip an ts w ho ch an ge d th ei r vi ew s) C ha ng ed ca te go ry C ha ng ed si de t0 -t 1 t1 -t 2 t2 -t 3 t0 -t 2 A t so m e po in t t0 -t 1 t1 -t 2 t2 -t 3 t0 -t 2 A t so m e po in t ‘I f D en m ar k jo in s th e si ng le cu rr en cy ,i t ca nn ot w it hd ra w at a la te r po in t in ti m e. ’ 67 62 63 74 88 23 19 22 28 45 ‘T he co op er at io n w it hi n th e si ng le cu rr en cy is un de m oc ra ti c. ’ 61 46 ** 54 ** 61 80 19 10 ** 15 ** 16 32 ‘D an is h pa rt ic ip at io n in th e si ng le cu rr en cy is be ne fic ia lt o th e D an is h ec on om y. ’ 64 47 ** 60 ** 68 84 7 3* * 6* 7 12 N ot e: A ll qu es ti on s ha d a 5po in ts ca le an d a ‘d on ’t kn ow ’o pt io n. ‘C ha ng ed ca te go ry ’i s de fin ed as a ch an ge be tw ee n th e si x po in ts of th e sc al e. ‘C ha ng ed si de ’i s de fin ed as a ch an ge fr om ag re es to di sa gr ee s or vi ce ve rs a. O nl y re sp on de nt s w ho an sw er ed th e qu es ti on in bo th re le va nt ro un ds of qu es ti on in g ar e in cl ud ed .n va ri es fr om 32 7 to 36 4. ‘A t so m e po in t’ re fe rs to pa rt ic ip an ts ch an gi ng at le as t on ce be tw ee n th e fo ur po lls .A ll ch an ge s in th e ta bl e ar e st ro ng ly si gn ifi ca nt co m pa re d to no ch an ge .* * T he nu m be r of pa rt ic ip an ts ch an gi ng op in io n is si gn ifi ca nt co m pa re d to th e pr ev io us ph as e at p < 0. 05 (t w ota ile dte st ). * Si gn ifi ca nt at p < 0. 1. 540 vibeke normann andersen & kasper m. hansen © 2007 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2007 (European Consortium for Political Research) Ta bl e 5. C on se ns us ,d is cu ss io n an d ar gu m en ta ti on in th e gr ou p se ss io ns (p er ce nt ag es ), (t 2) A gr ee N eu tr al D is ag re e N C on se ns us ‘F ro m th e be gi nn in g th er e w as co ns en su s in th e gr ou p. ’ 25 21 54 34 6 ‘T ow ar ds th e en d th er e w as co ns en su s in th e gr ou p. ’ 27 21 52 34 4 ‘T he re w as co ns en su s in th e gr ou p on th e w ay to de lib er at e. ’ 82 10 8 35 1 ‘I t w as di ffi cu lt to ag re e on th e qu es ti on s to be as ke d in th e pl en ar y se ss io ns .’ 28 12 60 35 3 D is cu ss io ns ‘A fe w of th e pa rt ic ip an ts do m in at ed th e di sc us si on s.’ 45 17 38 35 3 ‘T he re ar os e al lia nc es be tw ee n so m e of th e pa rt ic ip an ts .’ 31 24 45 35 3 ‘T he di sc us si on s w er e su pe rfi ci al .’ 10 10 80 35 4 ‘T he re w as to o lit tl e ti m e to di sc us s.’ 68 11 21 35 2 ‘A ll as pe ct s of th e eu ro -d eb at e w er e co ve re d in th e gr ou p di sc us si on s.’ 64 17 19 35 5