Citizens’ assemblies (CAs) are considered a promising tool for enhancing democratic processes and addressing complex societal challenges. Over recent years, there has been growing empirical evidence supporting the benefits of CAs for participants, such as increased knowledge, greater support for proactive policies, and a reduction in misperceptions about the issues discussed. However, there is a pressing need for more research on how CAs affect the wider public, often referred to as the "maxi-public." A key concern is that CAs might suffer from a "generic legitimacy gap" due to their novelty, perceived lack of full representation, and limited formal authority or accountability. This gap can hinder the broader acceptance and scalability of CAs as a democratic tool.
In this survey experiment, we aim to identify the predictors of the perceived legitimacy of CAs among Irish citizens who have no prior experience with them. Drawing on prior research, we operationalize perceived legitimacy as an aggregate of four key perceptions: (1) how trustworthy citizens believe a CA to be, (2) how representative they consider a CA to be, (3) the likelihood that the CA’s recommendations will be implemented, and (4) the likelihood that those recommendations will be taken seriously by politicians. Through experimental manipulation in the form of vignettes describing different CA scenarios, we will investigate how these perceptions of legitimacy are influenced by varying elements of CA design and outcomes. Specifically, we manipulate the type of issue being discussed, the level of authorization granted to the CA, the outcome reached by the assembly, and the degree of consensus among participants. Based on existing findings, we predict that each of these elements significantly influence participants’ perceptions of CA legitimacy.
In addition to these key variables of interest, we conduct exploratory analyses to investigate the role of extraneous variables that may also shape perceptions of CA legitimacy. These variables include participants’ familiarity with CAs and their awareness of previous CAs held in Ireland. After reading each vignette, participants indicate their agreement with the outcome of the CA. At the end of the survey, demographic information and measures of political engagement are recorded, which help contextualize the results. Research suggests that "disaffected" citizens—those dissatisfied with traditional democratic processes—might be more receptive to CAs. Therefore, we also assess each participant’s level of political disaffection, using four subtypes: political dissatisfaction, external efficacy, stealth attitudes, and populist attitudes.
By providing empirical evidence of the factors that influence the perceived legitimacy of CAs among non-participating citizens, this research aims to address a lingering gap in the literature on participatory democracy. Specifically, this work contributes to our understanding of the "legitimacy gap" in how citizens’ assemblies are perceived and offer insights into how elements of their design and outcomes can impact broader public acceptance. We also provide valuable insight on the preferences of disaffected citizens in deliberative democratic processes. Our work addresses important obstacles to scaling up the outcomes of mini-public deliberation to the maxi-public, thereby improving our understanding of citizens’ assemblies as a tool for democratic processes.