Survey Article: Citizen Panels and the Concept of Representation*

ARTICIPATION by lay citizens in technically complex political controversies often raises questions about the competence of participants and the quality of their contributions to decision-making. One way of addressing such concerns has been to establish temporary advisory bodies that involve lay people in cooperative deliberation informed by expert advice. Citizen juries, consensus conferences, planning cells and deliberative polls—referred to here collectively as "citizen panels"—seek to enhance both the rational justification for and popular sanction of political decisions. Citizen panels present a genuine conundrum for theories of political representation. Both conceptually and institutionally, they fall into a gap between the informal deliberative institutions of the public sphere and the formal decision-making bodies of the state. Unlike many civic associations and interest groups, citizen panels do not have continuing members who develop loyalty to each other and commitment to a cause; unlike most standing advisory committees or public hearings, they restrict interest group representatives to a supporting role; and unlike referenda, negotiated rule-making or juries in the US legal system, they have no authority to make legally binding decisions. And yet it seems clear that citizen panels are representative in some sense—but which? This article examines two distinct aspects of this question. First, viewed in isolation, in what sense are citizen panels representative institutions? Second, seen in terms of their relationship to other political institutions, what specific contribution can citizen panels make to the broad network of values and practices that comprise representative democracy? A number of studies have developed typologies of forms of citizen participation in complex policy areas.1 Although the following discussion may be relevant for various types of citizen panels, this article examines only the