Shielding deliberation 150 citizens at a time? Competing narratives of Citizens' Assemblies as drivers for a better-informed EU citizenry

The EU has witnessed the emergence of the “deliberative wave” in the past few years, which has culminated in the recent CoFoE and European Citizens’ Panels (ECPs). The calls for more deliberation and participation are coming from a wide range of diverse political actors that have joined forces to coordinate their demands and condition the political agenda to permanently institutionalize deliberation and citizens’ assemblies (CAs) in the EU political system. The “deliberative wave” has coincided in time with the emergence of fact-checkers and a strong regulatory entrepreneurship by the EU to combat disinformation through legislations such as the Digital Services Act (DSA). Despite the lack of academic consensus, disinformation is an articulating element of the different competing narratives. The question guiding this research is: How do the EU “deliberative wave” actors frame CAs as drivers of a better-informed citizenry? The article does not aim to analyse the functioning of these assemblies and their effects on individuals, but rather to analyse what narratives are mobilised to defend the institutionalization of deliberation and CAs as tools to combat disinformation. Building on “field” theory, this paper reveals a discursive struggle in the EU “deliberative wave” to define under which leadership and methodologies Citizens’ Assemblies (CAs) are institutionalised in the EU. Through theory-building methods, semi-structured interviews, and drawing on how CAs are framed as tools against disinformation, four prevailing narratives are identified: anti-political deliberation, self-legitimising deliberation, scientific deliberation, and radical deliberation. CAs do not necessarily foster a better-informed citizenry or a more inclusive democracy: each narrative implies a different normative conception of the public sphere and democracy. Depending on the type of actor and their objectives, they will gravitate towards the narrative that best allows them to position their interests in the “field”.