Published 13 May 2026
Author: Zintle Zweni, University of the Western Cape
South Africa is preparing to host its very first citizens’ assembly in Cape Town, with the event planned for six days between August and October 2026. During a period when public trust in democratic institutions is weak and political disengagement is growing, this moment is crucial. If designed well, a citizens’ assembly could strengthen participation and rebuild trust. If designed poorly, it risks becoming another symbolic project that leaves citizens feeling unheard. The stakes are very high.
Ireland offers valuable guidance on effective citizen assemblies, as it has gained international recognition for using them to address complex social and political issues, from abortion to climate change. Most recently, Ireland hosted the Citizens’ Assembly on Biodiversity Loss between 2022 and 2023. The success of this assembly was not accidental. It was the outcome of deliberate design choices that made participation meaningful, inclusive and influential. If South Africa wants its pilot assembly to be effective, these design features are important.
A citizens’ assembly is a group of randomly selected members of the public who come together to learn about a specific issue, deliberate collectively, and make recommendations to the government. Participants hear from expects, engage in structured discussions and are supported by trained facilitators to ensure respectful and balanced deliberation. However, the goal is not simply discussion, but to have informed and inclusive decision-making that contributes to strengthening democratic legitimacy.
Ireland’s Biodiversity Loss Assembly included 99 randomly selected citizens and an independent chairperson. Over several months, members of the assembly learned about biodiversity loss, heard evidence and briefings from experts, and deliberated in small groups before producing 159 recommendations for the government.
But what made it effective?
Participants were selected using demographic criteria such as gender, age, location, employment and occupational status (proxy indicator for socio-economic status and disability) and language (proxy indicator of nationality). This helped to ensure that the assembly reflected the diversity of the Irish population. Legitimacy began with who was in the room.
Members of the assembly were provided with information about biodiversity loss before going into deliberation. This allowed participants to deliberate confidently and thoughtfully. Informed citizens are more likely to give reliable recommendations.
Discussions were carefully moderated to ensure no individual or group dominated discussions, and to make sure all voices were heard. Structured deliberation created room for reflection rather than confrontation. This design feature is important in situations where public debate can easily become divided.
Ireland ran a parallel Children and Young People’s Assembly on Biodiversity Loss. Young people aged 7-17 were invited to participate in their own deliberative process. They produced 58 Calls to Action, over 90% of which were implemented or are currently in progress within government plans. Youth participation was not symbolic, children and adolescents shaped outcomes, showing that their perspectives can meaningfully influence national policy. This also built civic confidence among youth participants, strengthening democratic engagement beyond the assembly itself.
South Africa’s first citizens’ assembly will not succeed simply because it takes place, its legitimacy will depend on its design.
If participant selection does not visibly reflect the country’s diversity, trust will be weak from the beginning. If members are not given enough time and information to understand the issues, recommendations may lack credibility. If deliberation is not carefully facilitated, dominant voices may silence others. If the government ignores the recommendations, the assembly could be seen as ineffectual.
The Irish case shows that young people can be meaningfully included in deliberative processes when appropriate structures are in place, even though the Irish process focused on participants aged 7-17 years. In the South African context, young adults aged 18-35 are often underrepresented in formal deliberations. Although this group differs from the Irish participants, deliberately including South African youth could strengthen both the fairness and long-term focus of the process. The perspectives of young people in South Africa, which are shaped by experiences of unemployment, education and digital forms of political engagement, are often overlooked in traditional decision-making. Meaningful inclusion of young adults can enrich deliberation by introducing perspectives that might otherwise be absent.
Ireland’s Citizens’ Assembly on Biodiversity Loss succeeded because participation was treated seriously, not just symbolically. Its careful design, including representative selection, learning opportunities, structured facilitation and follow-through ensured that recommendations were implemented. The adult assembly produced 159 recommendations for the government, while the parallel Children and Young People’s Assembly contributed 58 Calls to Action. The combined recommendations from the adult and youth assemblies show the tangible impact of citizen input.
For South Africa, the key question is whether the Citizens’ Assembly will be designed to allow participants to genuinely influence policy processes. While assemblies do not have any formal legislative power, they can shape agendas, inform planning and create public pressure for action. The assembly’s design will determine its impact on participatory democracy, either building trust or reinforcing mistrust and disengagement.
Share to your socials:
+27 (0) 21 959 2957
4th Floor, EMS Building
University of the Western Cape
Robert Sobukwe Road
Bellville 7530