Citizens' Assemblies vs People's Assemblies

Author: Gavin Barker

This briefing sets out the advantages and disadvantages of People's Assemblies and Citizens' Assemblies. It expands on the Extinction Rebellion FAQ on key differences (see the final point) between these forms of deliberative democracy, in their excellent guide to People's Assemblies.

Commonalities

In common to both is the ‘assembly’ process: “which enables people to share equally and openly within an environment that is non-judgemental and respectful – and facilitated to that effect. They both use small facilitated groups to deliberate.”

Differences

1. A People's Assembly is self-selecting whereas a Citizens' Assembly/Jury is chosen through democratic lottery

When a People's Assembly is called, anyone can turn up. By contrast, participants to a Citizens' Assembly (40 plus participants) or a Citizens' Jury (15-20 plus participants) are chosen through democratic lottery (the technical term is ‘stratified random sortition’) in a way that ensures a diverse and representative sample of a target population. That target population can be a school, a town, city, region or country. It does this by paying careful regard to the population profile - age, income, gender, occupation and other demographic categories.

2. A Citizens' Assembly/Jury is more structured

It follows a 3-step process of learning, deliberation and decision-making. Participants first learn about a given issue by listening to expert presentations. They then deliberate among themselves in a way that respects differences and disagreements while seeking common ground. They then arrive at a set of decisions and recommendations that are usually submitted in the form of a report to a government body, be it a parish, a local authority, a public service or central government. A suggested time for a Citizen's Assembly or Jury is 30 hours, and at a minimum would involve around five 2 hour meetings.

By contrast a People's Assembly is shorter and typically lasts 2 hours. It is also less structured. While there is a learning element - often such assemblies start with a short ten minute talk or presentation - more time is given over to discussion.

Advantages and disadvantages

Both kinds of assemblies need work to recruit people to the assembly (or the pool from which the assembly will be selected from), from conversations in the high street, to knocking on doors, delivering leaflets in the area, talking with community groups and local representatives. This work supports getting a diverse body of people in the room. Those running an assembly also need to consider how they will facilitate so that it is inclusive and positively builds trust in attendees. For a People's Assembly there should be an output that feeds into ongoing work within the area. A Citizens' Assembly should have ongoing communication throughout the process and a final report.

People’s assemblies have particular strengths:

1. Relatively quick to set up: People's Assemblies can be convened quickly, which lends themselves well to the need to discuss and resolve pressing local issues and build community support. They can flexibly respond to particular local conflicts around priorities or feed into broader processes.
2. Assemblies are open to anyone: as all local residents can attend (though only some will come) it will be an opportunity to participate for anyone interested. This reduces the risk that people will feel excluded from a discussion or marginalised such that they can’t have a voice.
3. Flexible: The flexibility and less-structured nature of People's Assemblies means they are portable and can be held in different kinds of spaces, including at demonstrations, alongside public events, and virtually.

By contrast, setting up a Citizens' Assembly or jury requires more planning and design. 

However, there are three distinct strengths to a Citizens' Assembly or Jury:

1. Greater political credibility: citizens assemblies and juries are what are called ‘mini-publics’. Their recommendations draw strength from the fact that these come from a representative sample of the wider population, not from any campaign group or section of the public. They therefore cannot be dismissed as ‘the usual suspects’. By contrast, a People's Assembly may not be representative of the wider public but weighted towards those who are older and more articulate or those who have a particular interest or agenda.
2. Greater cognitive diversity: diverse backgrounds and life experiences lend themselves to diverse perspectives on addressing a particular issue or problem. The result is richer insight and more creative solutions. This is in stark contrast to an elected political class at local and central government level who may have ability but lack cognitive diversity given the disproportionate number of older, more affluent male representatives. The result may be poorer understanding and poorer decisions that fail to address the needs of the communities elected representatives claim to serve.
3. Reconnecting participative and representative democracy: Participative and representative democracy are often positioned as either-or. However, Citizens' Assemblies/Juries open up vital opportunities to re-engage with elected representatives by inviting them to speak. By doing so, they offer the chance for informed dialogue and strengthen transparency and accountability.

Concluding remarks

It is important to stress that People's Assemblies and Citizens' Assemblies can be combined. A People's Assembly may choose to adopt some of the features of a Citizens' Assembly, such as aiming for some level of mirroring the wider public or having sessions that are structured differently.

One may also feed into the other: a People's Assembly may decide to convene a Citizens' Jury to address a more intractable problem or single issue that requires much more time and deliberation. That Citizens' Jury may in turn report back to a reconvened People's Assembly to submit its report and recommendations.

The publisher is Citizen Network. Citizens' Assemblies vs People's Assemblies © Gavin Barker 2025.