Abstract
Abstract This article responds to the two key arguments presented by Eoin Carolan and Seána Glennon in their reply to our article: that the Citizens’ Assembly on abortion had a “consensus-clarifying” function rather than a “consensus-building” function in respect of the Irish constitutional amendment on abortion in 2018; and that participation in deliberative mini-publics should be compulsory, like jury service. We argue that the distinction drawn by Carolan and Glennon does not assist in understanding constitutional amendment processes, as the consensus required for a constitutional amendment must be fully formed, in respect of a specific amendment. We contend that the Irish Citizens’ Assembly assisted the formulation of that consensus in respect of abortion reform in Ireland. We argue that compulsory participation risks distorting the discursive environment that is essential to an effective and legitimate deliberative mini-public, and could fail to ensure the desired representativeness if exceptions to participation were allowed in certain circumstances.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
