Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • NEWS AND VIEWS

A bridge across the democracy–expertise divide

An innovative algorithm provides a way of fairly selecting representative individuals for citizens’ assemblies to learn about and deliberate on certain topics. Such groups hold promise for closing the gap between democracy and expertise.
  1. Mark E. Warren

    1. Mark E. Warren is in the Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z1, Canada.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

There is a growing gulf between experts and citizens. Distrust in science is on the increase, as are conspiracy theories that challenge evidence-based decision-making. Populist attacks on institutions that provide expertise for democratic societies and processes — administrative agencies, universities and research organizations — are on the increase, facilitated by social media. Can we strengthen democracy while also ensuring that governance benefits from expertise? Writing in Nature, Flanigan et al.1 present a way of fairly and democratically selecting representative groups of citizens tasked with advising on issues that often combine politics and expertise. As supplements to the conventional institutions of electoral democracy, these bodies show promise as a means of bridging the democracy–expertise gulf.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 596, 493-494 (2021)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02006-7

References

  1. Flanigan, B., Gölz, P., Gupta, A., Hennig, B. & Procaccia, A. D. Nature 596, 548–552 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Setälä, M. & Smith, G. in The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy (eds Bächtiger, A., Dryzek, J. S., Mansbridge, J. & Warren, M. E.) 300–314 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2018).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fishkin, J. S. Democracy When the People are Thinking: Revitalizing Our Politics Through Public Deliberation (Oxford Univ. Press, 2018) .

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gastil, J. & Knobloch, K. Hope for Democracy: How Citizens Can Bring Reason Back into Politics (Oxford Univ. Press, 2020).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Warren, M. E., & Gastil, J. J. Polit. 77, 562–574 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. OECD. Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave (OECD, 2020).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Subjects

Latest on:

Nature Careers

Jobs

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing

Search

Advanced search

Quick links