Deliberative design choices and their implications - dilemmas unveiled from the first Danish Citizens’ Assembly on Climate

Climate Assemblies (CA) have increasingly gained popularity as democratic innovations to inform public debates and influence politics on climate change. Whilst proponents argue for the potential to foster more ‘robust’ climate policies meeting the urgency of the climate crisis, critics fear that these formats produce ‘tokenistic’ or ‘tamed’ forms of public consultation. Despite scholarly disagreements, scholars concur that design choices concerning the commissioning public authorities, framing of questions to be discussed, and facilitation of the deliberation, significantly influence the deliberative and transformative qualities of these formats. Drawing on our experiences of participating in the advisory committee for the first round of the Danish Citizens’ Assembly on Climate (DCAC) we identify and analyse how different orientations towards CA resulted in dilemmas in the actual planning and design of the assembly. We show how design choices predominantly supported citizens to providing input to the pre-established institutional policy process rather than broadening political agendas beyond existing institutional political domains. This study contributes to the literature by advocating for a nuanced understanding of the implications of CA and how different design choices can result in CA as confirming, widening or transforming policy agendas.