By Elizabeth B. Jones
Beginning in the 1990s, the liberal democracies of northwestern Europe began to experiment with a new tool of governance, deliberative mini-publics, or DMPs, as an adjunct or complement to existing governing institutions. Denmark’s Consensus Conferences and Germany’s Planning Cells were pioneers in these experiments, and they were joined by a wave of others after 2000 and have since spread across the globe. Proponents have cheered the “deliberative wave” as a means of revitalizing stagnant or ailing liberal democracies. Critics have called for systematic studies of their impacts. However, the recent rise of right-wing populism also means that established democratic institutions, processes, and political parties must forge new ways of bolstering citizens’ trust and engaging voters over time. Perhaps the longest-running of these experiments is the Citizens’ Assemblies initiative established in the Vorarlberg province of Austria in 2006. Enshrined in the province’s constitution in 2013, the Vorarlberg model of Citizens’ Assemblies, or Bürgerräte, offers more than two decades’ worth of experience with trust-building between local governments, the state parliament, and its approximately 275,000 voters.
What is a citizen’s assembly, or Bürgerrat?
A citizen’s assembly is a civic engagement tool inspired by American facilitator Jim Rough’s “Wisdom Council.”[1] Jim Rough and his wife Jean were the co-founders of the Center for Wise Democracy in the US. The citizen’s assembly model adopted in the state of Vorarlberg in Austria also has roots in the province’s former “Office for Questions about the Future” (Büro für Zukunftsfragen). In particular, Rough’s method of “dynamic facilitation” influenced the final shape of our citizen’s assemblies. A citizen’s assembly is a simple, cost-effective, and quick tool for politicians and government administrations to gauge the attitudes of citizens about specific social challenges. The process is consultative, as the final recommendations of such an assembly are understood as advisory. Citizens are randomly selected from public records according to gender and age, and, if they accept, these citizens meet for a day and a half to grapple with a given question. Ideally, the group comprises twelve to sixteen ” people who do not necessarily have relevant expertise or special preparation; by extension, they also do not represent special interests but instead are free to express their personal opinions. Because of the deliberately random composition of the assembly, we find that the conclusions it reaches after a day and a half of discussion relates to the great majority of the Vorarlberg’s citizens.
A citizens’ assembly can be called for by a municipality (Gemeinde), a region, the Vorarlberg Parliament, or the state government. Since 2013, citizens themselves are able to sign a petition for the formation of an assembly. Such initiative requires a minimum of 1,000 eligible signatories and is essentially a grassroots option (Einberufung “von unten”). Once the required number of signatures are collected, individual citizens are randomly selected and invited to participate in the assembly and the multi-stage process already described starts.
The citizens’ assembly follows a structured and clearly-defined procedure that is divided into steps: the lead-up to the selection process, the assembly meetings, the public presentation of recommendations, and the follow-up process, which includes forwarding the results to relevant policymakers. Each stage has clear procedures and entails specific activities so that the citizens’ assembly can function efficiently and effectively. Although it is mediated by a dynamic facilitator, this person does not shape the content or outcomes; the participants decide for themselves which aspects of the specific issue at stake they will address. The goal is to reach a common position that all the participants, not just a majority, support. Through negotiations, the exchange of opinions, and empathetic listening, citizen’s assemblies strive to reach a common solution and thus become “sites of moral learning.”[2] They aim to balance different points-of-view and to focus on that which is truly essential for most people. Once, the assembly formulates its theories, perspectives, and potential solutions to the given problem, Once the citizen’s assembly reaches its conclusions, these are presented in a public forum, for example in a citizen’s café (Bürgercafé), where they are discussed and the population can ask follow-up questions. The organization of a follow-up session, such as the Bürgercafé, is important, as are the gathering of a strong pool of relevant policymakers to evaluate the assembly’s conclusions and the consistent and transparent reporting about the process to the participants. A significant strength of the Vorarlberg model is its strong institutional rootedness at every stage.
At this stage in the process, it is essential that the appropriate politicians and stakeholders are present. Moreover, it is important during this presentation to be transparent about the ways that participants in the citizen’s assembly reached their conclusions and to describe the overall “mood” or climate of the assembly. Following the public presentation, everyone in attendance is urged to reflect on the results and reach their own conclusions. In this way, citizens’ assemblies provide the impulse for the rest of the Vorarlberg’s citizens to investigate a given problem and come up with potential paths forward. The relevant authorities themselves take their direction from the assembly in their deliberations and therefore consider the assembly’s recommendations seriously. Thus, the citizens’ assemblies are an excellent starting point for political decision-makers. And occasionally, new questions arise in connection to the recommendations of a citizen’s assembly, which in turn can lead to the formation of another citizens’ assembly.
Why have the citizens of the Vorarlberg embraced this approach to democratic governance? Are there historical reasons that help explain why they have taken root in the province?
The Vorarlberg state constitution, drafted after the First World War, is rooted strongly in the Swiss traditions of direct democracy and federalist ideals. Besides the value of representative democracy, the constitution also enshrined significant plebiscitary powers for citizens, although over time these have been restricted by the state court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). Moreover, in 1997 the Vorarlberg Regulation was promulgated, which dictated that when a petition for a referendum is supported by at least 20 percent of eligible voters but is nonetheless rejected by the state parliament, a plebiscite must be held. The regulation mandated that if the plebiscite passed, the parliament was legally required to enact the law in question. The plebiscite therefore was legally binding. But the Austrian Constitutional Court subsequently ruled that this form of “citizens’ lawmaking (Volksgesetzgebung)” contradicted the guiding principle of representative democracy established in the Austrian state constitution. In response, in 1999, the “Office for Questions of the Future,” or Büro für Zukunftsfragen, was founded in the Vorarlberg. Its central mission was to facilitate cooperation between the state government, the administration, and Vorarlberg citizens. Its mission was to search for the simplest and most cost-effective way to create bodies that would produce workable plans on any given issue. This office has ceased to exist today. The pilot project “Children in the Center,” launched in 2004 with 140 participants and intended to build bridges among generations and support young people’s development as engaged citizens constitutes another milestone in the process of building a culture of citizens’ participation in the Vorarlberg. Through this project, what became most striking was the strong overlap between the citizens’ testimonies (compiled into thematic groups [Planungszellen]) and those of experts.
It was during this initial phase that a consultant, Manfred Hellriegl, stumbled onto the “dynamic facilitation” method of moderation. He thought that this technique was well-suited to working with a wide range of groups. His positive experiences with it led him to take a course with Jim and Jean Rough. There, he learned about the concept of the “Wisdom Council.” Hellriegel and his team then adapted the lessons learned in the course to craft the Vorarlberg Model of citizens’ assemblies, or Bürgerrat.
The Bürgerrat brings a special quality to political processes. The random selection of its members ensures diversity. Men and women citizens bring different forms of knowledge that also differ from those of experts and policymakers. This broad view means that their proposed solutions are practical and implementable, and often surprisingly effective. The German political scientist Patricia Nanz has praised the Vorarlberg model as one that fosters a resilient culture of participation, not just a way to encourage timely engagement with a given challenge.[3] Politicians value the citizens’ assemblies because they can help them make difficult decisions in a constructive way. For example, a local mayor in Vorarlberg reported that a citizens’ assembly had spared him and the town council hours of work.
The first citizens’ assembly in the Vorarlberg took place in the market town of Wolfurt in 2006. It was part of a pilot project. Since then, more than 100 citizens’ assemblies have met—in Austria, but also in Germany, Switzerland, and further afield. The experiences of the Vorarlberg have made the format a model admired across Europe, demonstrating that men and women citizens are more than ready to participate in shaping democracy if given the opportunity. Citizens are courageous and able to articulate needs and wished for developments clearly. They also have the advantage over politicians in the sense that they do not need to be as cautious and therefore tend to propose more progressive and visionary solutions.
The results of the experience in Wolfurt were unambiguous: the citizens’ assembly model was the right one and needed to be reproduced. So, since 2008, citizens’ assemblies have been held at all political levels in the Vorarlberg—communal as well as regional—and since 2011 throughout the entire province. The assemblies have grappled with a wide variety of themes and questions, and the experiences gained continue to shape the institution’s development. Between 2011 and 2026, some of the themes tackled by these assemblies have included prosperity, growth, and quality of life; neighborliness; youth and future opportunities; asylum and refugee policies; the future of agriculture; fair elections; home healthcare work; land and property management; climate change; government administration streamlining, and many more.
In 2013, the Vorarlberg was the first region in Europe to anchor the citizens’ assembly as a tool of participatory democracy in its state constitution. Therefore “participatory democracy,” along with direct democratic elements and the principle of representative democracy form the three pillars of its Article 1. The constitution not only guarantees the legal basis of the citizens’ assembly, it delineates a clear institutional format through supplemental clauses that ensure a culture of civic participation in the Vorarlberg. It recognizes the legal status of the assemblies, thus supplementing its direct democratic and representational elements.
Once a citizens’ assembly has met and formulated its recommendations, what is the process through which they are shared? Are there guidelines for the implementation of a given assembly’s recommendations?
At the conclusion of a citizens’ assembly, a common statement is produced—or common set of positions. These are presented in a timely manner to the public, inspired by the World-Café-method, where the public listens but is also invited to comment, supplement, affirm, or reject the recommendations. Following that exchange, a committee of politicians, policymakers, and relevant stakeholders assess the feasibility that a given recommendation can be implemented and make their own recommendations for that implementation: their task is to analyze whether the assembly’s proposals can be integrated into plans already in progress and existing programs. At this stage the ideas emerging out of the citizens’ assemblies and those developed through the World-Café are confronted with the processes of formal political decision-making, which is a valuable means of signaling the value of the citizens’ assembly and its work. Finally, all these elements are brought together into a formal report on the assembly.
Politicians then decide which individual proposals and recommendations will be implemented, but there is no legally binding mechanism to compel them to do so. However, typically within nine months, once the relevant experts have had time to consider the recommendations in detail, they are required to provide feedback to citizens about their decisions in a secondary report that contains specific information about how—or whether—an assembly’s recommendations will be implemented. Therefore, the citizens’ assembly is not a method through which concrete measures or binding actions are achieved. Instead, its value lies in their ability to highlight the perspectives, desires, and needs of ordinary citizens, what is most important to them, and strategies for crafting policies with wide public support. The assemblies give politicians crucial direction as they deliberate solutions without anticipating specific conclusions. That is precisely their strength. At the same time, differing expectations must be managed when participants or the public view the recommendations as binding.
How, in 2013, did the citizens of the Vorarlberg decide to codify the institution of citizens’ assemblies? What are the benefits of enshrining legal guidelines and principles for assemblies?
The impetus came from parliamentary speaker Markus Wallner in 2013, who sought to anchor the principle of civic participation across the province and by extension amplify it. Various legal frameworks were reviewed, including legislation. In the end, the principle of participatory democracy was included in Article 1, section 4 of the state constitution. Formal guidelines about the role and construction of citizens’ assemblies were also approved, and at the same time the possibility was added that an assembly could be formed “from below” with the support of 1,000 voter signatures.
The advantages of embedding the citizens’ assembly tool in the constitution first include the assurance of quality and consistency: the law specifies the sequence of steps to be followed including random selection, the methods of moderation, and the principle of objectivity. Second, the constitution embeds the sustainability of the citizens’ assembly as a tool that remains available regardless of the current political climate. Third, and this is very special, the constitution ensures the possibility for citizens to initiate the formation of an assembly themselves and thereby forges a direct link between politics and the citizenry; this is a pioneering aspect of the Vorarlberg model, which has received international attention and been adopted elsewhere, for example in the Polish city of Gdańsk and the German city of Konstanz.
What role do the citizens’ assemblies have in Austria’s larger governing structures? Are they well-respected and influential governing bodies?
Citizens’ assemblies are an advisory, consultative instrument—they are not a governing body of representative democracy but instead complement and enrich existing bodies. Thus, citizens’ assemblies do not make political decisions but nonetheless have powerful political effects. The public presentation of multiple options and considerations in relation to an issue at hand encourages greater public understanding of the challenges and the necessary next steps; the process facilitates productive exchanges and fosters positive political engagement. The participants produce high-quality and valuable results: they recognize and analyze social problems, set priorities, and assess the importance of individual themes. Just as crucial is the building of social skills—knowledge of how to grapple with different perspectives, active listening, and the willingness to compromise, as well as the nurturing of empathy and tolerance for ambiguity.
Finally, the citizens’ assemblies encourage participants to take responsibility for solving life’s problems and to search for solutions themselves. This empowerment is a consequential part of (stable/strong) social organizations. As a practical embodiment of deliberative democracy, the Bürgerrat indeed demonstrates how politicians, governmental institutions, and ordinary citizens can work together, and it strengthens citizens’ connections to their municipalities, their region, and their nation, as well as familiarizing them with the public duties of political and administrative work.
In terms of a transregional influence, the Vorarlberg model has garnered acclaim throughout Austria. The nationwide 2022 Citizens’ Climate Council (Klimarat der Bürger:innen), which included approximately 100 randomly-selected participants, was modelled on previous experiences in the Vorarlberg and Salzburg. Moreover, visitors from across the world—Japan, Ukraine, and Germany, among others places—have visited the Vorarlberg to gain a better understanding of citizens’ assemblies and how they work.
How have citizens’ assemblies in the Vorarlberg evolved over time? Are there problems that assemblies are especially well-suited to address and others that, for whatever reason, resist this approach to problem-solving?
The municipality of Wolfurt was the first to experiment with a citizens’ assembly in 2006, until it was enshrined in the province’s constitution in 2013, as we have seen here. Moreover, the model quickly spread to the regional and national levels. Since 2006, 45 citizens’ assemblies have been held, of those, seventeen were nationwide. Over time the process has been refined and expanded. To the initial building blocks of the assembly—the public forum presentation and the policymakers’, politicians’, and relevant stakeholders’ responses—was added an online participation option (vorarlberg.mitdenken.online), which fosters even greater participation and transparency.
The basic process is now often supplemented with theme-specific workshops, depending on the topic in question. For example, a citizens’ assembly about agriculture drew on the expertise of three regional working groups comprised of randomly selected men and women farmers from Egg, Bludenz, and Hohenems. The outcomes of each were shared and discussed in several regional Bürgercafés. During a citizens’ assembly dedicated to “children’s and adolescents’ schooling today” (Schulen für die Kinder und Jugendlichen unserer Zeit), four preliminary workshops were held with male and female pupils from schools in Rankfeil, Bütze-Wolfurt, and Baumgarten Dornbirn. The recommendations hammered out in those student workshops for “the schools of tomorrow” were forwarded to the assembly participants prior to their first meeting. Such innovations, including the formation of preliminary study groups, decentralization of Cafés, and the elaboration of procedures tailored to relevant groups, in this case to young people, enrich the debates about chosen themes without disrupting the assemblies’ general format.
The influence of citizens’ assemblies can be measured at three different scales. At the micro-scale, we see positive effects on individual participants themselves: greater political interest, broader perspective, increased trust in political processes, and a greater degree of subsequent political engagement—this increased engagement was observed for example after the citizens’ assembly about climate futures. At the meso-scale, there are about positive procedural and institutional effects: stronger networks of relevant actors and greater cooperation in the development of administrative improvements. This increased cooperation was especially clear following the citizens’ assemblies about asylum-seekers in 2015 and those focused on agriculture. At the macro-level, the effects on our political system are more difficult to measure, but they can nonetheless be observed in the increased occurrences of public debates, the greater legitimacy citizens have in decision-making, and—where relevant—in the way lawmaking and politics are conducted.
The most effective citizens’ assemblies have been those addressing themes relevant to people’s everyday lives. Moreover, success is more likely to occur when the public is invited early into the decision-making process and when assemblies focus on a clear concept, strategy, and creative scope. Providing well-trained moderators and ancillary support is also key. On the other hand, the least effective assemblies are those that are too broadly focused and try to engage too many people, or those whose aim is merely to inform the public. Similarly, assemblies do not work if the creative scope is too vague, the results are predetermined, or the political will to grapple with a particular issue is lacking.
What lessons might other communities, districts, regions, and nations learn from the example of the Vorarlberg Citizens’ Assemblies? Has there been discussion, for example, of other Austrian provinces adopting the Vorarlberg model?
At the national level in Austria, the National Climate Assembly was organized in 2016-17 on the model of a citizens’ assembly. Regionally, Upper Austria has also forged its own traditions of citizens’ participation. But the Vorarlberg citizens’ assembly model has also been influential in other Austrian provinces as well as in Germany, Italy, and Switzerland, all places that have developed their own structures and procedures for citizens’ assemblies. In this respect, the Vorarlberg is part of an international movement of states seeking to strengthen and expand the tools of participatory democracies, such as those described by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as part of a “deliberative wave.”
In the German state of Baden-Württemberg, the 2021 Law of Dialogical Citizens’ Participation (Gesetz zur dialogischen Bürgerbeteiligung) is an example of a good citizens’ participation practice, as is the permanent “citizens’ dialogue” created in the eastern part of Belgium in 2019. The cities of Gdańsk (Poland) and Konstanz (Germany) have drawn on the Vorarlberg’s experience to grant their citizens the possibility of initiating an assembly.
What other regions might learn from the Vorarlberg is that, above all, successful citizens’ assemblies need more than simply the good organization of single events. Instead, they require a resilient, consistent, and competent institutional and legal framework firmly anchored in the state’s administration. It also needs the provision of appropriate expertise in the way the assembly proceeds and functions, i.e., through an objective and thorough selection of randomly-chosen citizens and the presence of professionally-trained moderators.
Interview translated from the German by Elizabeth B. Jones.
The Vorarlberg Office of Administrative Innovation (Austria) was created in spring 2025, as the successor to the Office of Voluntary Engagement and Participation (Büro für Freiwilliges Engagement und Beteiligung). It is charged with the organization of Citizens’ Assemblies, a model of participatory democracy emulated across Austria, Europe, and the world.
Elizabeth B. Jones retired in 2019 from Colorado State University and now lives in Corvallis, Oregon. Her scholarship focused on rural Germany, gender, internal colonization, and the environment and includes articles published in Central European History, Geschichte und Gesellschaft, German History, Agricultural History, and Continuity and Change, among others. Her book, Gender and Rural Modernity: Farm Women and the Politics of Labor in Germany, 1871-1933, appeared in 2009. She lived in eastern Germany between 1993 and 1996, mainly in Leipzig and Dresden, and has made frequent returns since then. In 2021, she began a large oak savanna and meadow restoration project in Corvallis. She joined the research editorial board of Global Europe: A Journal Placing Europe in the World, in 2025.
Notes
[1] Jim Rough is a “dynamic facilitator” and consultant who lives in Seattle, Washington.
[2] Julia Baird et al., “Learning effects of interactive decision-making processes for climate change adaptation,” Global Environmental Change 27, 1 (2014): 51-63.
[3] Patricia Nanz and Claus Leggewie, Die Konsultative. Mehr Demokratie durch Bürgerbeteiligung (Berlin: Wagenbach Verlag, 2018).
