Deliberative Versus Direct Democracy. Why Did the French Citizens’ Assembly on Climate Reject Ratification by Referendum?

One of the defining achievements of the Irish citizens’ assemblies was their ability to integrate deliberative democracy, within the mini-public, with direct democracy through referendums that (mostly) ratified their recommendations. In stark contrast, the French Citizen Convention for Climate opted to avoid submitting most of their propositions to a referendum, approving only three for this process. What explains this divergence? Was their decision rooted in informed deliberation, or was it shaped by emotional responses? What broader lessons can be drawn from this tension between deliberative and direct democracy? Using a mixed-methods approach combining qualitative and quantitative analysis, this study investigates the deliberative process around referendum ratification, both within the Convention and in its broader socio-political context. Adopting an empirical lens, the findings demonstrate that the assembly’s decision was predominantly influenced by misinformation and biases rather than a rigorous evaluation of facts. Emotions, particularly fear, played a central role. Convention members framed themselves as “enlightened deliberative citizens,” contrasting this identity with their perception of the maxi-public as an “uninformed mass.” This self-perception fueled concerns that French voters would lack the necessary understanding to endorse their proposals and would reject them in a referendum. Paradoxically, quantitative evidence reveals that French voters would have supported all but one proposition. These empirical insights expose a critical fault line between deliberative and direct democracy, raising important questions about the institutionalization of citizens’ assemblies in larger political systems and their potential to work in synergy with other more inclusive democratic innovations.