Citizens’ Assemblies in Germany

Kristof Heidemann

University of Turku

I. Introduction

Largely unnoticed by the public eye, citizens’ assemblies (subsequently CA) are growing into an increasingly tested format of civil participation in Germany. This post provides an overview of the legal and political context, in order to explain why CAs are on the verge of becoming another contested issue in the increasingly partisan German public discourse.

II. Definition of citizens’ assemblies and constitutional background

The concept of citizens’ assemblies dates back to ancient Athens, where legislative panels, courts, and councils were chosen via random selection of Athenian citizens over the age of 30 (also called “sortition”) to debate governmental matters ranging from the city’s finances to military strategy. Within the modern discourse, CAs are defined as the gathering of a representative demographic sample of the population that receives information from experts and then deliberates together to make policy recommendations to government officials.

While the concept of citizen participation through random selection may feel out of place within the legislative or executive branch, it seems illuminating to remember that in the context of some criminal and civil trials this concept has been a steady part of democratic governance in multiple countries in the form of jury duty.

Contrary to the trial example, CAs in western democracies have had up until now only an advisory function and their proposals are in no way legally binding. CAs with legislative authority would breach the German constitution in its current form. According to Art. 76 I of the German Constitution, bills are submitted to the Bundestag (first chamber of Parliament) by the “Federal Government, from the midst of the Bundestag or by the Bundesrat” (the second chamber of Parliament). This list is exhaustive, and while “midst of Parliament” is in principle a legal term open for interpretation, the German Constitutional Court favors a reading that limits the scope to a grouping of members of Parliament (defined as elected representatives in Art. 38 I 1). On top of that, according to Art. 20 III of the German Constitution the legislative bodies are only bound by the constitutional order, and cannot be bound by the decisions of a CA.

Therefore, CAs cannot even insert proposals into the legislative process themselves (even though the constitutional institutions are free to pick up on their ideas), much less make legally binding decisions on them under the current constitutional framework. Thus, the advisory character that currently exists is unlikely (or perhaps downright impossible due to the ‘eternity clause’ in Art. 79 III of the German Constitution prohibiting amendments to Art. 20 of the Constitution, among others) to change in the future of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Experiences from around the world show that suggestions given by advisory CAs do not have a factually binding character that could breach the legislative independence guaranteed by Art. 20 II and III of the German Constitution. For instance, the French President Macron largely ignored the suggestions by Citizens’ Climate Convention, even though he had initially promised to submit them  unfiltered to either Parliament or a referendum. Therefore, CAs that are intended solely to serve in an advisory function are unproblematic under the German constitutional framework. 

III. The case for citizens’ assemblies  

CAs can provide room for political debate that not only reflects the spectrum of opinions within a society, but is also independent of the constraints of Members of Parliament. Politics in Western democracies are, to some extent, short-sighted by design (politicians and political parties must have one eye to securing reelection in the foreseeable future), putting party logic and tribalism over striving for the common good. These inherent flaws are amplified in the age of social media and have to be met by adapting the political discourse. Members of a CA cannot seek a next term and do not need to adhere to any party policy platforms, possibly allowing them to become a source of unbiased guidance in the democratic discourse, which is nevertheless connected to society at large.

In addition to this, it should be noted that the current electoral democratic system of Germany has been unchanged in its essential features since the declaration of the Constitution in 1949. Naturally, it was crafted for a political environment that has significantly changed in the almost 75 years that have passed since. Today the average German citizen has more resources, time, and knowledge to engage in political activities than their equivalent in the 1950s, even if it is not their profession. Consequently, it seems only natural that the constitutional system should reflect these changes and enable broader possibilities for civic engagement, of which CAs could form a significant part.                 

Moreover, CAs are not the untested pipe dream of academics that they used to be. While it is true that there has been a history of unsuccessful CAs around the globe in the 2000s, more recent examples have a far more favorable record. They now been proven to be such a valuable tool in multiple western countries that the OECD has labeled the trend a “deliberate wave […] across the globe”.                  

These encouraging experiences provide ample evidence that many fears surrounding CAs, like a lack of real representativeness (as participants have to spend time and sometimes money to take part, meaning that it is difficult to acquire participation of women aged between 25 and 40, people with care responsibilities or highly demanding/ multiple jobs, or those who are unemployed or underemployed) or being the cause of further disenchantment with politics by the general public when decision-makers do not follow the CA’s proposals, can be circumvented if CAs are crafted in careful and conscious manner.

IV. History of citizens’ assemblies in Germany

The first nationwide German CA on the topic of democracy met in 2019 as an antidote to democratic backsliding, followed by CAs on a wide range of topics, including Germany's role in the world, climate protection, and most recently national nutrition.

The first CA in 2019 was initiated through the cooperation of civil society organizations, and its report called for further CAs under political sponsorship. In the follow-up, the then President of the German Federal Parliament Wolfgang Schäuble (who was also a respected elder statesmen and the oldest-serving Member of Parliament) supported future CAs with his patronage, which is credited to have been essential to push the topic into the general German political discourse. He argued that German democracy needs to be able to adapt itself to changing times if it wants to survive, and explicitly referred to the internationally acclaimed experiences in Ireland as a possible role model. In 2017, an Irish citizens’ assembly came up with a recommendation to legalize abortion, which soon after was approved by 66 percent of Irish voters, thereby putting an end to more than four decades of fruitless political debate.

After the initial CAs that had been initiated by a coalition of civil society associations received praise across the political spectrum, in 2023 the Parliament initiated the first governmentally-organized CA, partially institutionalizing the formerly strictly privately coordinated instrument.

V. Outlook

Given the success of many past CAs and the urgent need to include a democratically legitimate but unconstrained and uncorrupted voice in the political debate, CAs are a democratic innovation that has already shown promising results in Germany and internationally, and that should be pursued in an expanded sense in the future.

Notwithstanding the appeal on the theoretical level, the experiment of CAs in Germany is currently in danger of failure, since the leading current opposition party CDU has categorized the recent implementation of a CA concerning nutrition as a “weakening” of the federal Parliament and as “not a good day for parliamentary democracy in Germany”, in a U-Turn from their prior position under Wolfgang Schäuble.     

The far-right AfD party joined in on the criticism, calling instead for more direct democracy, which is a democratic innovation proposal in its own right, but one without a structured expert consultation of the involved citizens incorporated into the process. This dramatically heightens the danger of oligarchic steering through well-financed campaigns in favor of special interests, and necessarily reduces highly complex issues into simplistic questions that can be put on a ballot. In contrast, CAs flatten the deliberative process, enhance participants’ understanding of complex issues, and ultimately fosters more informed, balanced, and sustainable decision-making outcomes.

Statements such as those from the CDU and AfD are likely to significantly decrease the willingness of politically conservative citizens to engage in further experiments in this direction, thereby endangering the representativeness of future CAs, through which the foundation of the project gets eroded. In this way, those parties might have created a self-fulfilling prophecy: without broad participation, CAs will indeed cease to be a valuable democratic tool.

Kristof Heidemann is a PhD researcher at the Faculty of Law of the University of Turku.

The author would like to express his gratitude to Professor Nobuo Haruna from the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies for his support in the initial stages of drafting of this post.

Suggested citation: Kristof Heidemann, ‘Citizens’ Assemblies in Germany’ IACL-AIDC Blog (28 November 2024) Citizens’ Assemblies in Germany — IACL-IADC Blog