When Government Decides Otherwise. What Happens to Political Trust When Government Disregards the Outcome of a Deliberative Mini-Public?

Research on democratic innovations insists that more citizen involvement in the political process is a good thing (Spada & Ryan, 2017). In particular, citizen involvement processes are seen as a way to generate trust in the political system among participants and the wider public (Boulianne, 2018; Grönlund, Setälä, & Herne, 2010; Marien & Kern, 2018). Yet, this ideal picture does not always match real-life participatory processes. For instance, a considerable amount of such procedures lacks real impact on policies (Font, Smith, Galais, & Alarcon, 2018). This calls for a better understanding of the conditions under which democratic innovations can – or cannot – realise their potential. Through a survey-embedded experiment, we investigate to what extent the trust-engendering effect of a deliberative mini-public is moderated by whether the outcomes of the deliberation influence actual policy. Scholars have long argued that citizens care deeply about the process or procedure by which a decision is made (MacCoun, 2005; Tyler, 2003). For example, citizens are keen to have a voice in the decision-making process, even when this voice is indirectly exercised through other citizens (Esaiasson, Persson, Gilljam, & Lindholm, 2016). Yet, drawing on work by Ulbig (2008), voice alone may not be enough. Citizens’ perceptions of having a voice and influence is found to foster political trust, but a ‘frustration effect’ is likely to occur when citizens perceive voice but no influence. If citizens are heard, but do not have actual influence on policy, they may feel disenchanted and discontent with politics - which may further decrease levels of political trust compared to not having a voice at all (Ulbig, 2008). This study uses an experiment to be fielded in Belgium in April/May 2020. Respondents are randomly assigned to one of three conditions. The two treatment conditions first inform respondents that a government-backed citizens’ assembly recently took place to discuss a specific policy area, whereas the control condition informs respondents that the government recently made a series of decisions in the same policy area. Respondents are then asked to indicate their policy preferences with regards to specific proposals in that policy area. Following this, treatment condition 1 informs respondents that the government decided to implement the outcome of the citizens’ assembly, whereas treatment condition 2 informs respondents that the government decided not to implement the outcome of the citizens’ assembly. The control condition simply lists the decisions taken by the government, without any reference to a citizens’ assembly. Following the treatment, we measure respondents’ political trust, evaluation of the process, and agreement with the outcome. By doing so, this study contributes to a better understanding of the conditions under which deliberative mini-publics can possibly hinder – rather than foster – political trust among the wider public.