Improving public deliberative practice : a comparative analysis of two Italian citizens' jury projects in 2006

Recently the author was invited to Italy, by the Regional Government of Tuscany, the University of Bologna and the University of Turin. The three institutions asked the author to speak about random sampling as a means to include missing voices in political decision making, i.e. the voices of those who usually remain unheard (see Carson & Martin 1999). Their interest was with the author’s work in the field of deliberative democracy and its practical expression, democratic deliberative processes, best exemplified by citizens’ juries (see, for example, Carson & Martin 1999, Carson & Hart 2005, Carson & Hartz-Karp 2005, Carson 2004, Carson 2003, Carson et al. 2002, Crosby 2003). Inevitably the author was drawn into deep discussions about the two recent attempts to convene citizens’ juries (CJs) in Bologna and Turin (both in 2006). It became apparent, as it had already to the convenors from the Universities of Bologna and Torino (Turin), that both attempts were ambitious and well executed but still fell short of the convenors’ ideals. This paper draws together the author’s reflections about the concerns that were heard during these discussions. Advice was sought, and that advice is repeated here. These observations may be helpful for those embarking on similar experiments for the first time.