I went to the Demos webinar recently which was really interesting. They began by discussing Carnegie UK’s Life in the UK 2025 report, which offers a clear signal about the state of the nation: collective wellbeing remains stuck at 62/100, and democratic wellbeing is even worse at 41/100. A striking 72% of people say they do not feel able to influence decisions affecting the UK.
Of course, none of this is new to me: I spend most of my time in communities, listening and learning about how life feels and how the unintended consequences of well-intentioned policy (well, I hope it’s well-intentioned!) land on real people.
The webinar explored how to strengthen the public’s voice in democracy. Again, it won’t surprise you that my interest was piqued given I’m always banging on about trust, social capital, and the infrastructure of participation!
I expected like-minded people sharing research and insights, and I got that that in places, but I must confess I also found myself jumping up and down shouting at the laptop!
This narrative that people are apathetic drives me mad. It is simply not true. People are more interested in politics than I’ve ever witnessed in 30 years of doing this work. What they feel is disconnected, not apathetic. They don’t trust decision-makers, and often with good reason. They don’t attend meetings because they don’t believe they will be listened to or that it will be worth their time.
They’re not apathetic: they’re political (big P and small p) and entirely rational in deciding whether to engage. You’d have to be living in a cave not to see the ‘othering’ happening as political differences play out across society: this is not the sign of apathy. So where are the collective spaces to work these differences through? To hear each other? To grapple with the trade-offs that inevitably occur when we are trying to shift complex systems?
Citizens’ Assemblies: Ordinary People, Informed Judgement
Citizens’ assemblies are one of the few democratic tools that genuinely help people understand the complexity of social issues, and in my experience, they are often the first time participants have played any role in decision-making.
Some join purely for the money (which is exactly why we offer it! We need disengaged views as much as engaged ones). But then they get into the process and see how politics really plays out: how difficult decision-making is, how constraints sit behind seemingly ‘simple’ ideas. Done well, an assembly brings together a spectrum of evidence and a structured learning and deliberation process, and participants almost always find it fascinating, enjoyable and eye-opening. Many want to continue being involved long after.
So no, I don’t see apathy. I see energy – that energy could strengthen our democracy in a much more positive way than petitions, protests and polarisation.
Assemblies are simple and powerful: ordinary people, randomly selected to reflect their community, given balanced evidence and independent facilitation to develop informed recommendations.
This challenges a persistent myth that ‘people don’t want to engage’. At MutualGain we see the opposite. When engagement is well-designed, accessible, well-facilitated and purposeful, people don’t just show up, they flourish.
“They’re expensive!” they say…
People often say assemblies are expensive. I beg to differ. I’ve seen huge ‘communications’ budgets spent on broadcasting a message rather than listening. Assemblies are one of the more comprehensive engagement tools, yes, but they generate far more value than a messaging campaign. I know they are like comparing apples with pears but you get my drift – money can be found to ‘tell’ people so perhaps it should be found to ‘listen’ to people. If decision-makers genuinely want to know what a randomly selected group of citizens would decide when given the same information as them, then assemblies are worth every penny.
Representative vs Deliberative Democracy?
Max Wilkinson, representing the Liberal Democrats, repeated the familiar critique: citizens’ assemblies are “not a substitute for representative democracy.” He’s right, they’re not. They could substitute the unelected chamber though but that is a different campaign being led by the Sortition Foundation. Max Wilkinson went on to say: “I’m not a hippy, as you can see, but community engagement is actually very important.” Exactly.
The real tension isn’t between representative and deliberative democracy. It’s between doing democracy well or doing it performatively. Assemblies do not replace elected representatives; they enrich them. They give politicians insight into how residents weigh complex trade-offs. Given how fragile trust is, that insight is essential, and a very good use of resources.
At a time when democratic wellbeing is critically low, narrowing participation is the last thing we should be doing. This government should be thinking about the risks of not involving people. Simplistic arguments about ‘efficiency’ ignore the crucial democratic role that citizens’ juries and assemblies provide.
We are in an era of community power: we’ve seen protests, tensions and public mobilisation across the country. People want to be heard. Let’s give them effective, structured ways to share their experiences.
The former Secretary of State for Justice, Sir Robert Buckland KC, argued: “If people aren’t happy, they should vote for someone else.” But voting every four or five years is no longer sufficient democratic engagement, especially when election information can be misleading or outright lies (and we’ve had plenty of that in recent weeks).
Assemblies offer deeper, ongoing voice.
Imagine assemblies on immigration, taxation, policing, poverty or social care. These issues need informed public judgement, not polarisation. As one assembly member said to me:
“I never imagined this group could reach consensus. You’d think it suits politicians to keep us divided.”
The lived experience in the room was starkly different.
Yet the panel at this webinar disagreed about the role of lived experience. For me the argument is simple: policy made without public insight risks entrenching inequality.
The Life in the UK report shows that disabled people, ethnic minority groups, social renters, and low-income households consistently have the lowest wellbeing scores, and are least represented in decision-making.
Assemblies bring those voices into the room as evidence, not anecdotes. They reveal how systems land in real life, and the unintended consequences policymakers miss.
Assemblies cultivate informed, confident citizens who often want to stay involved long after the process ends. That should strengthen democratic wellbeing and increase that score of 41 that the webinar opened.
The Carnegie report and the DEMOS discussion led me to the same conclusion:
If we want to improve national wellbeing, we must strengthen the public’s voice.
Citizens’ assemblies are one powerful tool. But the wider message is clear:
people need meaningful, supported, and regular routes into public decision-making.
Strengthening democratic wellbeing is the foundation for the social, economic and environmental wellbeing the UK is crying out for. Collective wellbeing is only possible when people can shape the world they live in.
I remain hopeful, because I see people’s potential every day. Resourcing democracy can rebuild trust, deepen understanding, and create a society that genuinely works for everyone.
Thank you to Demos for an interesting webinar: the speakers were certainly an interesting choice!
So friends and colleagues (and anyone who does not consider me either of those!)
What issue would you like our government to explore through a citizens’ assembly?