The consensus-clarifying role of deliberative mini-publics in constitutional amendment: A reply to Oran Doyle and Rachael Walsh

Abstract

Abstract Oran Doyle and Rachael Walsh’s article “Constitutional Amendment and Public Will Formation: Deliberative Mini-Publics as a Tool for Consensus Democracy” is a welcome addition to the literature on Ireland’s efforts to integrate deliberative citizen-involved structures into its constitutional amendment process. We agree that the Citizens’ Assembly on abortion played a role in shaping the legal position that ultimately emerged in Irish law; we disagree, however, with the authors’ account of how that occurred. In particular, we do not believe the Irish experience supports the claim that deliberative mini-publics help to build the consensus for constitutional amendment. On the contrary, on each occasion where amendment processes incorporating a deliberative element have succeeded in Ireland, there has been clear evidence of an enduring pre-existing public consensus over the core of the amendment proposed. We suggest that the potential value of deliberative mini-publics might more accurately be seen as one of consensus-clarifying rather than consensus-building. While a mini-public may be unlikely to create a novel constitutional consensus, it can have a significant—potentially causal—role in converting a general and disparate desire for change into a specific form. That, in our view, is what occurred with the repeal and replacement of Ireland’s constitutional position on abortion. We argue that a careful analysis of the process provides tangible evidence that the Assembly affected the outcome in clear and specific ways: its significant impact was not in creating a constitutional consensus that had previously been absent, but rather, we argue, in putting on the agenda, and coalescing support around, a specific form of legal change.