First Walloon deliberative committee: Its key recommendations

Wallonia’s first Deliberative Committee brought together 10 MPs and 30 citizens drawn between October 2023 and February 2024 to address the following topic: 

“How can Wallonia’s citizens be involved in the decision-making process on a permanent basis, taking inspiration from the permanent citizen dialogue that exists in the German-speaking community, which is based on the drawing of lots?

After 5 discussion sessions, the participants drew up and voted on around thirty recommendations grouped into 4 main areas:

1. Ongoing dialogue with citizens
2. Deliberative committees
3. Concerning all citizen participation processes
4. Popular consultations

Considering that : 

• The permanent nature of the citizens’ council set up in the German-speaking community means that the role of citizen participation is strengthened and recommendations are followed up more effectively;
• Following up on citizens’ recommendations is a major challenge for participation, as failure to take them into account can undermine trust between the public and their representatives;
• the joint work between elected representatives and citizens is beneficial in terms of producing relevant recommendations and encouraging elected representatives to take them on board, and that the total absence of elected representatives on this citizens’ council in the German-speaking community is viewed negatively;
• Elected representatives are more likely to take ownership if they are open to ideas and reflections that go beyond the positions and interests of their political parties;
• the fact that citizens’ assemblies in the German-speaking community are held without elected representatives gives citizens more room for expression and freedom;
• the permanent nature of the project may discourage some participants because of the excessive commitment required, and special care must therefore be taken to involve participants over the long term.

The Deliberative committee recommends:

1.1 Setting up a permanent citizens’ dialogue at regional level based on the existing permanent citizens’ dialogue in the German-speaking community, consisting of a permanent joint council, citizens’ assemblies and joint assemblies, as follows:

1. The Permanent Joint Council

• the permanent mixed council is made up of 30 citizens chosen by lot who have taken part in the citizens’ or mixed assemblies and 10 deputies according to criteria that ensure the representativeness of the Walloon population on the basis of existing best practice and at least gender, age, geographical distribution and level of education, including socio-professional categories;
• The citizens and deputies who are members of the Permanent Joint Council serve for a period of one year. The Permanent Joint Council is partially renewed every 6 months;
• The Permanent Joint Council prioritises the subjects to be dealt with on the basis of existing tools or tools to be created, in particular a digital platform for gathering citizens’ opinions. The topics are collected in an inclusive way, particularly from young people. The proposals are discussed by technical and real-life experts. Citizens can then support the proposals;
• The Permanent Joint Council determines the number of participants in the Citizens’ Assemblies according to the issues to be discussed; 
• The Permanent Joint Council selects technical experts to provide input to the Citizens’ or Joint Assemblies;
• in the case of a citizens’ assembly, the Joint Council determines one or more times for discussion with members of parliament before finalising the recommendations; 
• It decides whether to convene a citizens’ meeting or a mixed meeting, depending on the subject;
• It organises the work of the citizens’ and joint assemblies and monitors the recommendations;
• In this context, it may propose to submit the recommendations formulated by these assemblies to a regional popular consultation;
• the Permanent Joint Council will mention the subjects to be discussed and the practical arrangements for inviting citizens drawn by lot;
• citizens’ or parliamentary initiatives may be referred to the Permanent Joint Council;

1. Citizens’ assemblies

• the citizens’ assemblies are made up of 50 to 75 citizens chosen by lot according to criteria that ensure the representativeness of the Walloon population on the basis of existing best practice and at least gender, age, geographical distribution, level of education and socio-professional categories;
• They are set up for a specific theme by decision of the Permanent Joint Council;
• The Citizens’ Assemblies deliberate on matters referred to them by the Permanent Joint Council;
• The Joint Council plans to organise one or more discussions with members of parliament, depending on the progress of the work of the Citizens’ Assemblies.

1. Joint Assemblies (current deliberative committee – Rule 130a of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure)

• The Mixed Assemblies are made up of 10 deputies and 30 citizens chosen by lot according to criteria that ensure the representativeness of the Walloon population on the basis of existing best practice and at least gender, age, geographical distribution, level of education and socio-professional categories;
• they are set up following a parliamentary or citizens’ initiative or an initiative of the Permanent Joint Council;
• The Mixed Citizens’ Assembly deliberates on matters entrusted to it by the Permanent Mixed Council, the Members of Parliament or the citizens;
• recommendations 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9 apply to the formation and work of joint assemblies;

1.2 Regulating the operation of these bodies by means of clear rules of procedure inspired by Parliament’s rules governing parliamentary committees;

1.3. Promote transparency in the process by setting up, on the initiative of the Parliament’s Bureau, a digital platform providing access to documents and files with a view to informing members of the bodies about the subject under discussion;

1.4. Ensure ongoing monitoring of the entire system in order to guarantee continuous improvement in the organisation of these bodies and their work, including their internal rules of procedure. Also, carry out an overall assessment of the system after three years;

1.5. With regard to the Budget that : 

• A fixed annual budget to be determined and adopted by Parliament;
• The Permanent Joint Council allocates this budget independently;
• The budget is subject to re-evaluation in the light of the assessments referred to in point 1.4.

1.6. Follow up the recommendations through at least three meetings with members of the Citizens’ Assembly, representatives of the Joint Permanent Council, members of the relevant parliamentary committee and the relevant member(s) of the Government (ministers). The purpose of these meetings is to

• the presentation of recommendations by members of the citizens’ or mixed assembly; 
• the opinion of parliamentarians on these recommendations;
• follow-up of these recommendations, with reasons given if they are not followed.

If certain recommendations are partially or not taken up by the parliamentarians, for reasons that the Permanent Joint Council considers relevant, it can formulate alternative proposals to facilitate the taking into account of these recommendations;

Considering that :

• the continuous participation of the same citizens and MEPs over the course of the sessions encourages high-quality reflection ;
• As MPs are more comfortable speaking out than citizens chosen by lot, they can dominate discussions in spite of themselves if no action is taken;
• whatever the quality of the work of a deliberative committee, the impact may be limited if it is not known to the rest of the population.

The Deliberative committee recommends :

2.1. Encourage the training of non-elected members of the public prior to the first meeting, in particular on the operation of the meetings, but also on the subject under discussion, in addition to the information sessions already provided for in the current format;

2.2. To guarantee optimum participation by citizens and MEPs over time, in particular by informing them as fully as possible of what their participation requires in terms of the time and work required at the start of the process;

2.3. To allow citizens to be replaced by their deputy during the process, as is the case for MPs.

2.4. To allow members to participate remotely using IT tools, in the event of force majeure;

2.5. That the Members and Substitutes of the deliberative committee should preferably be the Members and Substitutes of the parliamentary committee responsible for the subject dealt with by the said deliberative committee;

2.6. To guarantee equality of opportunity for Members and citizens to speak by setting a speaking time for Members and, if necessary, by signing a charter of commitment drawn up at the beginning of the process;

2.7. To publish a summary of the discussions at each meeting of the deliberative committee, in particular with a view to informing the alternates; 

2.8.  Dedicate a page to the follow-up of recommendations on the Parliament’s website, so that their progress can be viewed, with specific annual communication on the follow-up of these recommendations and communicate the results of the deliberative committees through all the channels available to the Parliament;

2.9. To allow members to set the timetable for the work of the deliberative committee.

2.10. That the intervention of experts be validated by the competent bodies of the Parliament, possibly on the proposal of the Deliberative committee.

Considering that :

• the close ties between citizens and their representatives are tending to diminish;
• the subjects put on the agenda for public debate and citizen participation schemes are most often decided without consulting citizens on their own areas of interest;
• the experts’ opinions may influence the recommendations made by the participants;
• mechanisms involving Walloons in decision-making must be accessible to the population in all its diversity;
• the digital divide must not prevent certain citizens from taking part in public decision-making;
• Better communication upstream will increase the diversity of people willing to take part;
• Better communication during and after the event will help to inform and mobilise the public beyond the few participants involved;
• it is important for citizens to be informed of the follow-up to their recommendations or comments. Most of the participation mechanisms in place in Wallonia provide for little or no follow-up to recommendations. Transparent follow-up and proper consideration of recommendations can encourage participants and boost their confidence;
• the budgets allocated to citizen participation must be sufficient to meet the objectives. For participatory processes to be successful, it is necessary to be able to identify as a priority the issues that matter most to citizens and to allocate sufficient resources to these processes. The proliferation of participatory mechanisms may be desirable, but the financial and human costs involved must be managed as effectively as possible. Beyond the amounts allocated, it is necessary to ensure optimal management of budgets.

The Deliberative Committee recommends : 

3.1 Put in place an inclusive harvest of the subjects that matter to citizens, through different channels, involving technical experts and those with first-hand experience, possibly including younger people, and using different methods to be identified; 

3.2. Ensure transparency in the choice of experts in participatory processes in order to ensure a diversity of opinions to best inform the decision. Allow participants to propose experts and involve them in their ; 

3.3. As far as possible, select members of participatory processes that involve a “mini-public” intended by lot, in order to be as representative as possible of the population of a given area, including in socio-professional terms, in accordance with the same procedures as for deliberative committees;

3.4. Remove the disincentives to participation, in particular through: the possibility of childcare, the possibility of following the work remotely in the event of force majeure, the payment of travel expenses, an adequate participation allowance, and other facilities. Use invitation letters that provide fuller information and encourage curiosity. Consider making attendance at a 1st information session prior to the participatory process compulsory, so that citizens can make an informed choice as to whether or not to participate. Also consider with the Federal Authority the possibility of introducing a democratic holiday;

3.5.  Facilitate the participation of people who are not digitally literate by ensuring that consultations are not carried out solely online, but rather by making it possible for them to contribute by other means;

3.6. Ensure multi-channel communication on participatory processes, taking account of the digital divide, by encouraging public services (including community and local media) to provide better coverage of citizen participation mechanisms. Consider the possibility of extending the obligation for public channels to broadcast parliamentary debates to the processes of mixed or citizens’ assemblies;

3.7. Make it compulsory for elected representatives to give reasons and verifiable justification for rejecting or accepting citizens’ recommendations;

3.7.bis. Establish a process for monitoring the implementation of the recommendations, in which the participants are involved in an educational capacity, while ensuring the widest possible publicity, including face-to-face meetings where appropriate;

3.8. Ensure that participatory processes are properly managed, with sufficient financial resources, taking into account the overall cost of participation processes. Ensure that recommendations and consultation opportunities are clearly prioritised in the interests of efficiency. Use existing tools, including digital tools, such as applications and “civic tech” platforms, to inform and consult widely, without limiting ourselves to this type of tool in order to avoid the digital divide;

3.9. Strengthen citizenship training in education, in collaboration with the Wallonia-Brussels Federation, in particular by studying ways of strengthening school democracy (class councils, student councils, delegates and making the link with our political structures).

Considering that :

• The number of signatures required is currently very high, which makes it difficult in practice for citizens to launch popular consultations;
• there is a risk that certain sensitive issues will not produce good collective decisions if they are subject to the direct opinion of the population;
• the wording of a question submitted to popular consultation can influence the outcome and that the choice of who formulates the question is therefore important;
• Responding only with a yes or no answer does not allow us to correctly gather the population’s opinion on all types of subject. A more nuanced response would be appropriate for questions that do not lend themselves well to binary answers;
• It is important that the question put to the public is formulated in terms and language that are accessible to all;
• It is important that people are properly informed about the issue in question so that the choice they make is an informed and considered one;
• To ensure a sufficient turnout, the public must be well informed when a popular consultation is organised. A low turnout can weaken the legitimacy of a popular consultation;
• If citizens get involved in a popular consultation and the results of the vote are not taken into account, there is a risk that the public’s sense of frustration and distrust of politics will increase even further.

The Deliberative Committee recommends :

4.1. Encourage regional popular consultations, in particular under the auspices of the Permanent Joint Council, and consider the number of citizens’ signatures required and the percentage required in Walloon electoral constituencies in order to find the right measure to ensure that this mechanism is used more frequently; 

4.2. To open up the possibility of regional popular consultations enabling participants to respond in a graduated manner (for example on a scale of 1 to 6). To submit the subjects submitted for popular consultation to the Permanent Joint Council referred to in point 1.1.a., accompanied by experts, so that it can define the response method chosen (yes/no or scale) as well as the wording of the questions validated in the end by the Constitutional Court; 

4.3. Provide the public with information in lay terms, presenting the arguments in a balanced way. This information material could be drawn up by a citizens’ assembly or a mixed assembly as described in point 1.1. The deliberations of the assembly convened to discuss a given subject and relating to each proposal would be presented to the public as information material; 

4.4. Evaluate the possibility and appropriateness of amending the Constitution in order to make popular consultations binding.