Democratic member-based organizations like labour unions, co-operatives, student unions and recreational clubs play profound roles in society.
Whether building community, driving social change or grappling with shared challenges around work, childcare and learning, these organizations offer opportunities to advance members’ interests through localized democracy.
The promise they hold is hinted at by their scale. In Canada, for example, labour unions represent almost a third of Canadian workers, and there are over 19 million active memberships in Canada’s more than 6,500 co-operatives.
Yet despite their representative reputations, these organizations often struggle to maintain vibrant, effective democracy. In the final years of Mountain Equipment Co-Op’s (MEC) existence, for example, only about one per cent of members chose to vote in elections as the organization deprioritized member participation in favour of business objectives.
Meanwhile, the University of Toronto Students’ Union, representing over 41,000 members, has struggled with voter turnout, unfilled elected positions and achieving quorum — the minimum threshold of participation for valid decisions — at its general meetings.
Rethinking how these organizations involve members is essential to sustaining their democratic credentials. Our research suggests that participatory processes called deliberative mini-publics can be a key part of the solution.
Challenges with achieving democracy
Democratic member-based organizations commonly structure their democracy around two core bodies: an elected board of directors and general assemblies open to the entire membership. On paper, each of these bodies has significant responsibilities.
General assemblies’ responsibilities often include holding the board accountable, discussing shared concerns and proposing and agreeing on resolutions. Those of the board of directors often include overseeing the organization’s management, preparing items for consideration at the general assembly and implementing approved decisions.
The problems encountered with this structure at Mountain Equipment Co-Op and the University of Toronto Students’ Union, however, are not aberrations. Our research across student unions, labour unions and co-operatives suggest they are widespread in democratic organizations.
With co-operatives, for example, boards of directors often fail to mirror the diversity of the broader membership and sometimes make decisions that do not reflect members’ interests.
At a typical general assembly, only a small and often unrepresentative subset of the membership will likely be present. Those attending may find few genuine opportunities to learn from and discuss issues with others. This, in turn, can lead to decisions that are poorly informed or overly influenced by the board of directors or management.
Mini-publics as a promising solution
Our research on these different types of democratic member-based organizations has explored how the thoughtful use of deliberative mini-publics could help them improve their internal democracy.
A mini-public brings together a microcosm of a particular population — selected through a democratic lottery — to learn and deliberate about one or more topics in a supported environment. The outputs of these deliberations can offer direction to decision-makers and other stakeholders.
Take one example we were both involved in: in 2021, the School of Law at Queen Mary University of London convened the Students’ Jury on Pandemic Learning. Twelve students were selected through a stratified lottery that accounted for self-identified characteristics like gender, fee status and race.
Through five intensive sessions, these students engaged with subject matter experts and interested parties, and participated in facilitated discussions. These efforts culminated in 13 recommendations that were collectively ratified and shared with the school’s leadership.
Initiatives like this can go a long way towards overcoming a number of democratic member-based organizations’ challenges. Compared to self-selected general assemblies and elected boards of directors, mini-publics’ use of lotteries engages significantly more diverse groups of participants.
Access to expert insights and stakeholders’ lived experience helps ensure that a wide range of relevant perspectives are brought to participants’ discussions and decisions. Facilitators help ensure that participants’ discussions are inclusive and on point.
As a result, their judgements are more likely to be well reasoned, thoughtful and balanced. Participants can also emerge with new skills, confidence and a heightened desire to contribute to the organization in other ways.
Making use of mini-publics
While mini-publics have been capitalized on by governments around the world, their potential has typically been overlooked by member-based organizations. Yet there are many ways these organizations could use them to complement their existing board of directors and general assembly.
First, mini-publics could be used to evaluate specific resolutions regarding strategic plans, financial and sustainability reports and nominees for the board of directors. Their conclusions would be shared with the broader membership to inform their votes at general assemblies.
Second, they could be used to assess the board’s performance and offer feedback to ensure decisions are responsive to the needs of the membership.
Third, mini-publics could be used to unearth shared concerns on topics that have not yet received enough attention by the board of directors, such as the implications of artificial intelligence for their activities.
Whether in these ways or others, mini-publics can help revitalize the democracy in democratic member-based organizations. In doing so, they can help realize the aspirations that drive people all over the world to join these organizations in the first place.