Mini-Publics Cross-Cultural Exchange – a blog about my recent time to Japan.
My recent trip to Japan began in Tokyo, where I had the immense pleasure of spending half a day and evening with the Japan Mini-Public Research Forum. It is comprised mostly of deliberative democracy academics and employees and board members of Koso Nippon, a Japanese not-for-profit public policy think tank.
It was fascinating to interact with the group, with Google translate in action on the big screen to help us communicate.
After initial introductions the President of Koso Nippon, Hideki Kato, provided an overview of the organisation’s history, achievements and challenges. Heavily influenced by the work of Peter Dienel’s Planning Cells in Germany, they have implemented 335 randomly selected Resident Councils for 156 local governments across Japan since 1997.
The rationale for the approach of Koso Nippon was explained as:
- Democracy is at a cross-roads; we need a new form of democracy as most people find it hard to believe their elected representatives are really reflecting their wishes and interests.
- People need to see democracy as being ‘their own business’ rather than being ‘someone else’s business’.
- Any nation will be better off if the thoughts and feelings of everyday citizens, selected to participate through a ‘democratic lottery’ can be reflected in policies and incorporated into politics.
I was impressed how Koso Nippon do not always work with Councils who have a dilemma to put to the public. They encourage citizens to take the initiative, to start identifying issues of public interest and then seeking support from Council to explore the issue. Not only that, they also developed solutions which outline responses to issues in terms of what citizens can do (to be part of the solution), what Councils can do, and what they can do together.
The term jibu-gotoka was also referred to – which means ‘one’s own business’ and ‘making it personal’. It’s about transforming citizens from passive observers into active participants who view civic affairs as part of their everyday lives rather than as distant, abstract concerns.
Interestingly the work of Koso Nippon has now spread to Indonesia.
The next presentation, ‘20 Years of Mini-Publics in Japan and the Future’ was delivered by Professor Tatsuro Sakano, University of Tokyo. Apart from referring to trends of deliberative mini-publics, including the more recent number of Climate Assemblies, Tatsuro provided a typology to outline, and perhaps demystify, how Citizens Juries, Citizen Assemblies and Deliberative Opinion Polls.
Typology of Mini-Publics
| Feature | Jury-type | Citizen Assembly | Opinion Poll |
| Size | 10-20 | 100-300 | 100-500 |
| Purpose | Evaluation of Existing Policy Options | Generating New Policy Proposals | Informed Public Opinion |
| Examples | Citizen Jury Consensus Conference | Planning Cell Citizen Deliberative Meeting (CDM) Citizen Assembly Jibungotoka Kaigi | Deliberative Poll |
| Randomness | High, equality | Not necessarily high Inclusiveness Representativeness | Essential Statistical Representativeness |
| Deliberation | Deliberate pros/cons Rank and endorse | Deliberate pros/cons |
(While on the subject of Typologies you may like to read the excellent ‘Guidebook for Deliberative Engagement’ produced by the Centre for Deliberative Democracy, and check Table 3 on page 87)
I then had the privilege of sharing about trends and practice across Australia and talked through the variables of deliberative engagement processes.
What was interesting for me, with both Tasuro’s typology and Centre for Deliberative Democracy’s methods is that the term ‘co-design’ doesn’t appear. Anyway, that is something I’ll write about further in the near future.
We left with the genuine intention to keep sharing our stories and challenges, frameworks and yes, typologies. The conversations continued over dinner, which included some new delicacies; massive oysters, ginkgo nuts and hot sake.
