The Assembly That Wasn't Bound
A national government established a Citizens' Assembly of 99 randomly selected citizens, stratified by age, gender, region and education, to consider replacing the single transferable vote with a closed-list proportional system. Over 12 weekends, members heard 28 experts, received 140 submissions, and voted 68% in favour. The government's terms of reference said it would 'respond publicly within six months'. Seven months later, no response has been published. A minister says the assembly was 'advisory' and that the Oireachtas committee must scrutinise the proposal first. Two assembly members resign, saying they were 'used as cover'. Opinion polling shows 54% of the public want a referendum; 31% oppose; 15% don't know. The assembly cost €2.4 million. Turnout at the last general election was 63%. The proposal would likely benefit larger parties.
1. Evaluate whether the government is morally or politically obliged to hold a referendum on the assembly's recommendation.
Read the worked answer
The government is politically obliged but not legally bound. The terms of reference promised a public response within six months, not a referendum. That promise creates a due-process obligation: the government must publish reasons, not simply let the report expire. The assembly's 68% is not a public mandate; it is a deliberative sample. Its legitimacy rests on random selection, balanced information and time, not on numbers.
A referendum would be the appropriate aggregative test, because changing the electoral system alters the rules by which governments are made. But the government's delay is damaging: it converts a good-faith experiment into a suspicion that citizens are consulted only when convenient. The minister's argument that an Oireachtas committee must scrutinise first is reasonable, but it should have a timetable.
My judgement: publish a response within 30 days, refer the proposal to a committee with a 90-day deadline, and commit to a referendum if the committee does not reject it. That honours the promise, protects parliamentary scrutiny and gives the public the final say. Refusing a referendum without reasons would be legitimate in law but corrosive in practice.
2. Compare deliberative and aggregative democracy in this case. Which model better fits the assembly?
Read the worked answer
Deliberative democracy asks citizens to reason together under conditions of good information and mutual respect; aggregative democracy asks them to count preferences, usually through elections or referendums. The assembly is deliberative by design: 99 randomly selected members, 28 experts, 140 submissions and 12 weekends. Its 68% is the product of learning and argument, not a snap poll. That gives it a distinctive kind of legitimacy: it can claim to represent considered judgement.
But it is weak on authorisation. No one elected the members, and the public cannot remove them. Aggregative democracy supplies that missing link. A referendum would test whether the wider electorate agrees, but it would also expose the proposal to campaign spending and misinformation. The two models are therefore complementary, not rival.
The assembly's proper role is agenda-setting and reason-giving; the referendum's proper role is decision. The government's mistake is to treat the assembly as either sovereign or irrelevant. It should treat it as a filter that improves the question put to the people. A useful hybrid would be a referendum preceded by a public information campaign co-designed by assembly members.
3. Recommend a process for handling the recommendation, with justification.
Read the worked answer
Recommendation: a three-stage process. Stage 1, within 30 days, the government publishes a written response accepting or rejecting each recommendation with reasons. Stage 2, an Oireachtas committee holds public hearings for 90 days and reports on constitutional and practical implications; assembly members testify. Stage 3, if the committee does not reject the proposal, a referendum is held within 12 months, with a neutral information booklet and a spending cap.
Justification: the process must satisfy three tests - fidelity to the promise, quality of scrutiny and public consent. The delay fails the first. A snap referendum would fail the second. An indefinite committee would fail the third. The staged process also protects against the objection that the assembly was a 'focus group'. By giving assembly members a formal role in scrutiny, it links deliberation to decision.
The cost is time, but electoral rules are high-stakes; a year is proportionate. The government should also publish the assembly's cost and methodology, because transparency strengthens the institution for future use.