This blog presents key recommendations based on research conducted as part of a new paper by Dr Alison Chisholm on the impact of citizens' assemblies on social cohesion and climate policy. You can read the full paper here.
Climate action by governments at all levels is urgent, and public support of policies is crucial to their success. But at a time of high distrust in our political system, getting buy-in from citizens on climate policies that impact their day-to-day life is difficult.
Strong social cohesion – the degree of trust in decision makers, shared values, and sense of belonging within a community – is essential for the successful delivery of climate policies, but how can we actively cultivate this social harmony?
Through recent research into the impacts of Deliberative Public Engagement, I've found that paying attention to certain elements of citizens' juries and assemblies might help foster the social cohesion needed to tackle our climate crisis head-on.
The role of social cohesion in delivering climate policies
Social cohesion is concerned with how we live well together in a diverse democracy and how we peacefully navigate disagreements for the common good, despite the differences among us. (1)
We find social cohesion in people’s attitudes and values where there is trust, a sense of belonging and a willingness to participate and help. We see it between citizens and institutions and between social groups. Where it is high, authorities are perceived as legitimate, and citizens have a sense of openness towards engaging with other groups.
Social cohesion can smooth the development and implementation of climate policy, especially where that policy depends on active participation and buy-in from citizens. Transport policy is a case in point. Asking those who can to switch car journeys for the bus or a bike, for example, may be to ask them to re-shape behaviour and daily routines, or to tolerate uncertainty, inconvenience or discomfort, for outcomes they don’t value. Sometimes it conflicts with closely held identities, values, habits and environments that were built around car use.
Where trust in the political system and between social groups is low, it’s harder for these policies to gain traction. Where people suspect those on “the other side” act in bad faith, it can draw initiative and energy away from change and can even manifest as resistance or backlash to policies.
In one city, the introduction of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (which restrict traffic flow through residential areas) was controversial and divisive, showing up as friction between neighbours and family members, and even leading to vandalism, protest, harassment of councillors and disruption to council meetings. At a citizens’ jury in this city on transport, climate change and health, members started with typical disagreements. One jury member,said,
On the first day, as we were chatting, it became clear that there were very diverse opinions among the jury on things like car ownership, cars, and the degree of concern about climate. And so initially, I thought, ‘Oh, God, we're going to have some really, really big arguments here'.
However, after four days of learning and deliberating together, in a collective statement agreed by all jury members, they agreed that
We knew that reaching agreement on how to balance people’s travel needs with environmental and health considerations would be challenging (…)However, our experience proved that, with expert facilitation, a group of people, diverse in life experience, knowledge and understanding, can meet such challenges; and that the negotiations along the way can be ‘bonding’ rather than ‘polarising’ (…) Our experience has been that individuals are far happier with change if they think they, or ‘people like them’, have been truly listened to.
Building social cohesion through deliberation
Processes like citizens’ juries, assemblies and other forms of deliberative public engagement are uniquely positioned to build social cohesion because they inherently encourage understanding, mutual respect, and collaboration amongst diverse groups. By bringing together individuals from different backgrounds to engage in structured, facilitated discussions, deliberative processes create opportunities for participants to discover shared values and bridge divides. The process itself fosters trust – not only between participants but also towards institutions, by demonstrating that decisions are being shaped inclusively and fairly.
Through these processes we see how disagreement can turn into constructive dialogue, empowering communities to navigate complex issues together. In its nature, deliberation embodies the principles of social cohesion: connection, trust, and collective problem-solving. It makes sense that we should focus on the use of these democratic innovations as we look to foster much needed social cohesion.
My research involved close observation of two deliberative processes and interviewing those involved (members, politicians, civil servants and commentators). These interviews revealed a number of insights into how by adding a social cohesion lens into the planning stage of a deliberative process, there is much that can be done to build bonds within a community and trust between citizens and decision-makers. The key findings can be distilled into 5 recommendations to consider when planning deliberative public engagement:
1. Recruitment
Use a measure of distrust in “the system” or in Government as a selection criterion.
2. Onboarding and communications
Pro-actively engage low-trust groups as members and commentators by lowering barriers to participation and ensure communications about the process and its outcomes are accessible.
3. Learning
Explore ways to deal with misinformation and non-mainstream views, while ensuring all participants are respected and included. This may include emphasising the importance of engaging with good-faith actors and considering boundaries against others; agreeing criteria for reliable sources of information; and identifying shared values and concerns (see “deliberation” below) and validating them while decoupling them from false beliefs.
4. Deliberation
Exploring the values underpinning people’s preferences may reveal more agreement than expected. For example, two people who strongly disagree about introducing Low Traffic Neighbourhoods might find they both value accessibility, safety and clean air but prioritise them differently, or hold different beliefs about the impacts of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods on them. Even where differences of value remain irreconcilable, people who understand and recognise the legitimacy of each other’s values may be better disposed towards seeking agreement on ways forward, making collective decision-making more tractable.
5. Impact
Involve decision makers throughout the process (e.g. as observers or commentators) so they witness citizens’ capacity to contribute to policy, gain perspective on citizens’ circumstances, needs and priorities, to increase contact, respect and trust.
Planned with an eye to their potential to enhance social cohesion, processes like citizens’ juries, assemblies and other forms of deliberative public engagement can help people and institutions move from “fighting to critical engagement, from enemies into adversaries who are treated with respect”(2)
References
1. Khan S. The Khan Review: Threats to Social Cohesion and Democratic Resilience: A new Strategic Approach. Department for Levelling Up HaC; 2024.
2. Dryzek JS, Niemeyer S, Dryzek JS. 855 Pluralism and Meta-Consensus. Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance: Oxford University Press; 2010. p. 0.