Deliberative Democracy: A Must-Have

Last week, I attended a conference organized by the Luxembourg presidency of the Committee of Ministers, focused on youth participation in the digital era. It was a two-day event at the University of Luxembourg, primarily for academics, and I was the only non-academic among the group. There were about 20 presentations, but if you were to sum them all up, they really boiled down to two key points:

First, technology—especially artificial intelligence—is crucial. Second, trust is a major issue. I think these points resonate with what we’ve been discussing here today.

What struck me in the discussions around technology is that there’s broad agreement on the importance of protecting society from its negative consequences while also harnessing the positive potential of technology, especially artificial intelligence, to strengthen democracy. However, so far we have been much more successful at identifying the risks rather than exploring the good uses of technology to empower and enhance democracy.

Similarly, when it comes to trust, we all acknowledge the declining confidence in democracy. We understand some of the reasons behind this erosion of trust, but we're still far from finding effective solutions to restore that confidence. This makes our discussion today on deliberative democracy all the more important. In this complex and still foggy landscape of emerging potential solutions, deliberative democracy clearly has an important place.

In my view, under the right conditions, deliberative democracy can have a significant and positive impact. We've already seen this in various examples, as discussed today. It can help rebuild confidence in democracy, particularly among those participating in these processes. Under one condition. If we get it right. As much as deliberative democracy can be a force for good, it can also be damaging if citizens are asked for their opinions and then ignored. Giving people a voice and then disregarding their answers can have devastating consequences.

This is not just a theoretical issue; it’s something that can happen in practice. In the Directorate for Democracy, we're deeply committed to democratic engagement and regularly participate in deliberative discussions. We challenge each other constantly. I’m sometimes accused of being skeptical, but that’s not the case. I believe in deliberative democracy, and I think it’s incredibly important. But with the current level of trust in democracy, we may not get a second chance to get it right. Therefore, before scaling deliberative democracy to a national or even European level, we need a solid foundation in how to do it right.

The second point I want to address is one that Art O’Leary touched on earlier—that deliberative democracy is not a threat or an alternative to representative democracy. Deliberative democracy clearly supports representative democracy, and that’s crucial. However, we must also recognize the underlying problem: the declining confidence in democracy is largely due to frustration with representative democracy. While deliberative democracy can help restore trust, it is not a magical cure and it cannot be used as an excuse for the flaws in representative democracy. Our efforts to expand deliberate democracy must go hand in hand with tackling the inefficiencies, lack of transparency, accountability, and integrity that have contributed to the erosion of trust. If we don’t, not only will deliberative democracy fail to restore confidence, it could backfire.

The third point I want to raise concerns the examples of successful deliberative democracy at local and regional levels, as discussed earlier. These examples are crucial because it's at this level that most citizens interact with and experience democracy. This is where their attitudes toward democracy are shaped, making it a critical area for trust-building. While these local and regional efforts have been successful, and organizing them is relatively easier, the real challenge lies in scaling them to the national level. Although we’ve seen some success, we’re not yet at the point where this becomes a systematic, regular practice. There's still much work to be done before we can implement deliberative democracy on a national or supranational level.

So, where does the Council of Europe fit into all of this? We have clear marching orders, as laid out in the Reykjavik Declaration of the heads of state two years ago, which highlighted the need to counter democratic backsliding and emphasized democratic participation, including deliberative democracy, as a priority. The Secretary General's new Pact for Democracy also identifies declining confidence as the biggest challenge and emphasizes innovating for democracy—specifically mentioning deliberative democracy as a key avenue for this innovation. Additionally, the Pact aims to facilitate critical discussions on these issues, just as we’re doing here today, and integrate the results of these discussions into the Council of Europe's work.

It’s clear where we are headed and what our priorities are. We are not starting from scratch. Several people in this room, including Claudia and Alina, have been working on these issues for a long time and have brought us to this point. I want to express my sincere gratitude to them. We have the recommendation, which is a great starting point, but there’s still work to be done, particularly considering everything we’ve discussed today.

I’d also like to thank Cornelia, especially for her work in organizing this exercise. She has been a true force for deliberative democracy, and we will miss her dearly when she leaves the Council of Europe. She’s the kind of person who can move mountains, and although we’ll continue her work, her absence will be felt.

In conclusion, deliberative democracy is not just a priority for the Council of Europe; it is essential for the future of democracy in Europe. We now have the structures in place, including the Special Steering Committee on Democracy, which is already working to create the necessary policy and legal frameworks to elevate deliberative democracy to the next level.

Finally, when I was given the title for my intervention—"Deliberative Democracy: A Must-Have for the Council of Europe"—I loved it. But I would say it’s not just a must-have for the Council of Europe. It’s a must-have for the citizens of Europe and for the future of democracy itself.

Thank you very much.