Should Citizens Trust their Randomly Selected Peers?

This essay presents a critical examination of trust in the context of minipublics (DMPs), with the aim of substantiating the notion of contingent trust and making recommendations for its formalization. Filling a gap in the literature on minipublics, it argues that proponents of DMPs have underestimated the conditions for public trust, risking a potential backlash against democratic innovations. It posits that trust in DMPs should not be based solely on their perceived benefits for democracy, but rather on the demonstrated trustworthiness of these mechanisms. And the trustworthiness of DMPs should be considered in terms of public justification. That is, the recommendations of DMPs should only be trusted if (a) their deliberations have been open to the public throughout, and (b) the outcomes of those deliberations can be reasonably justified by the deliberating citizens to their non-deliberating peers. Accordingly, the essay suggests that DMPs can only function as ‘trusted information proxies’ if it can be ensured that deliberating citizens are not unduly influenced by special interests. It also highlights the potential of DMPs to provide descriptive representation, but warns of issues of attitudinal conformism and self-selection that may undermine their trustworthiness. Finally, the paper argues for improved communication between DMPs and the general public in order to foster horizontal trust between deliberative panelists and non-deliberative citizens. By addressing these key considerations, this essay contributes to a nuanced understanding of trust in DMPs and their role in enhancing democratic legitimacy.