Citizens’ juries and their role in improved alcohol policy: damp squib, or useful tool?

Abstract

Background Increasing public participation has the potential to inform better alcohol policy. One method for increasing participation is the citizens’ jury – a strategy that has been both touted as a panacea for issues of democratic representation and dismissed as ineffective in impacting policy. Seeking to look past both hype and cynicism, we reflect on two Australian juries with an aim to identify both the potentials and pitfalls of the use of citizens’ juries in alcohol policy. Methods Using public documentation, we analyse two alcohol-related citizens’ jury processes – one in Adelaide, SA, and one in Sydney, NSW – with respect to their implications for alcohol policy development. We reflect on matters of participation, deliberation, authority, remit, and impact of recommendations. Findings The case studies indicate the importance of clear aims; whether these are instrumental and focussed on developing specific alcohol policy recommendations or focussed on broader epistemic democratic effects. Jury composition, the notion of vested interests, and the extent of juries’ authorising power are key considerations for juries deliberating on alcohol policy. Conclusions Due to the nature of policy-making, no single strategy can be a democratic panacea. However, we find that carefully considered and situationally aware elements of citizens’ juries may be useful in alcohol policy development.