Democracy’s next wave: A conversation with David Van Reybrouck
From sortition to preferendums, Van Reybrouck speaks with Claudia Chwalisz about why citizens must be at the heart of 21st-century democracy
How can democracy renew itself before the next crash?
That’s one of the central questions explored by historian and award-winning author David Van Reybrouck in his work on democratic innovation. From citizens’ assemblies to his idea of the “preferendum,” Van Reybrouck has been at the forefront of efforts to put people back at the heart of decision-making. He is also part of DemNext’s International Advisory Council.
DemNext CEO Claudia Chwalisz sat down with Van Reybrouck to discuss his outlook on the future of democracy, the lessons of history, and why he believes institutionalising deliberation is essential in the 21st century.
This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and formatted for the newsletter. You can listen to the full 40 minute conversation on Spotify, where you can also follow DemNext’s ‘Another Democratic Future’ channel for future interviews.
CC: On a scale of zero to ten, how optimistic are you about the future of democracy right now?
DVR: I’m extremely optimistic - if we’re talking about the long term, say the 22nd century. But for this century and the next couple of decades, I’m fairly sombre. I’d put my optimism at perhaps two or three. I think we’re going to run into major difficulties before things get better.
Of course the system will change - it has to. The question is whether we can guide that change before a crash. I’ve been campaigning for this for 15 years, and if anything, I see more risk of a crash now than when I started. So yes, democracy will adapt, but I fear it may be only after a storm.
CC: You have been working on reimagining democracy for about 15 years, with ideas like citizens’ assemblies and the ancient practices of sortition and deliberation. During that time, what has changed in terms of the spread and reception of these ideas?
DVR: It has spread. When I started, there were little-known examples - academic experiments, activist processes - but very few official citizens’ assemblies. That number has definitely increased. From a fringe idea, it has become something that might work, and in certain circles it has become mainstream.
But most of our fellow citizens are still unaware, or even distrustful. It’s like explaining to country folk in the 1820s what a ballot box is, or in the 1850s what a voting booth is.
Research by Jean-Benoit Pilet and colleagues looked across Europe and other democracies to see who is most keen on these innovations. Much to my surprise and joy, it was people without college degrees, often people in poverty. That’s hopeful. Those who think citizens’ assemblies are only for the educated left are really wrong.
For a while I feared we might end up with the right defending referendums and the left defending deliberative democracy. That would have been a disaster - citizens’ assemblies becoming part of the culture wars. The only advantage of the slow introduction we’ve seen is that it has avoided that.
Compare this with climate change, which has become so politicised it’s almost impossible to have rational decision-making. With democratic innovation, things are happening slowly - frustratingly slowly, but steadily. In Brussels, for example, change came gradually: with a roadwork project, a few parking spaces were removed, trees were planted, bicycle racks added. People adapted. Later the city launched the “Good Move” campaign and suddenly there was backlash. By naming it, they painted a bullseye on it.
So gradual introduction has advantages. But at some point, we will have to move faster.
CC: Do you feel things have sped up at all over these 15 years, or does it still feel like step by step progress?
DVR: I recently learned that grass grows first linearly, then exponentially. It creeps along in February and March, and then in April it shoots up. Deliberative democracy may follow a similar path.
You once used the term “wave” in the OECD report, and some people dislike it because waves die down again. But I like the metaphor. The first wave may be over - the wave of one-off experiments. Assemblies with enthusiastic politicians produced good recommendations, but implementation was shaky. Citizens went home, administrations didn’t know what to do with the outcomes, politicians were distracted by the next election. We’ve had dozens of examples like this.
But I don’t mourn the end of that wave, if it is replaced by a second: one of permanence and institutionalisation. Permanence means doing it all the time; institutionalisation means embedding it into governance. Both matter, but institutionalisation is the real game-changer.
One-off assemblies are like one healthy meal. Better than nothing, but it won’t give you a healthy lifestyle. To rebuild trust in democracy, we need something lasting.
CC: I agree. I think of waves as collective energy - you can’t just stop them once they start.
DVR: True. But to be honest, if a national politician asked me today to help with a one-off national assembly on climate, I’m not sure I’d say yes. We’ve seen the limits of one-time processes. They often end up with 150 recommendations - like a shopping cart crammed full because people think it’s their only chance.
That’s why the permanent climate assembly we helped create in Brussels excites me more. Every year, citizens choose one topic, deliberate, and produce recommendations. That’s a sustainable model for the long term.
CC: How is this second wave of institutionalisation evolving?
DVR: Still timidly. Even organising a three-weekend process is a big challenge for most governments, let alone a permanent structure.
But there are bright spots. In the German-speaking part of Belgium, politicians from different parties supported creating a permanent Citizens’ Council. It was extraordinary. My hunch is that within the next decade or two, a medium-sized European democracy will try this at the national level.
CC: You’ve also written about bicameralism. What does that mean for today?
DVR: Historically, bicameralism balanced different interests - aristocracy, regions, religions. In the 20th century it came to feel outdated. But I believe in a “neo-bicameralism”: one elected chamber, one selected by lot. That could bring legitimacy and balance for the 21st century.
CC: You’ve argued referendums can be divisive. What’s your alternative?
DVR: I propose the “preferendum.” Instead of a yes/no vote, citizens evaluate and prioritise a list of proposals. This avoids binary splits and produces a map of shared priorities. It would give policymakers a clear sense of what society as a whole values.
Think of it as combining representative democracy (elections), deliberative democracy (citizens’ assemblies), and direct democracy (referendums). Each has strengths and weaknesses. The preferendum could bring them together.
CC: Some argue deliberative democracy is too Western. How do you see this?
DVR: I disagree. My work in South Africa and Congo showed me that traditions of deliberation exist worldwide. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, village meetings under the mango tree – these are forms of democracy too.
For me, deliberative democracy is not about exporting Western models but rediscovering traditions we’ve forgotten. Democracy is not just a European invention. The Athenians used the lottery, yes, but many cultures developed their own forms of shared decision-making.
We need to broaden our view, to see deliberation as part of a global heritage.
You can also read Van Reybrouck’s timely Aeon essay, “We Need a Planetary System of Diplomacy for the 21st Century,” where he argues that Earth - facing existential threats - deserves a diplomacy that extends beyond nation-states to the scale of the planet itself.
📡 On our radar
👀 How to Save Democracy: Meet the Pioneers. If you missed our CEO, Claudia Chwalisz, in conversation with Jon Alexander and Katy Rubin on the International Day of Democracy, you can rewatch it here. With thanks to The Conduit for the recording.
🤖 New research by our collaborators at the MIT Center for Constructive Communication from an MIT Student Assembly introduces an AI-powered framework for tracing how ideas evolve, are prioritised, or discarded in deliberative assemblies, offering fresh empirical insights into collective decision-making.
👇🏼 Listen to Claudia Chwalisz on Past Present Future, The History of Ideas Podcast with David Runciman, as they talk about citizens’ assemblies and their enormous potential.
🐝 Upcoming events
20 October, 13:30 - 15:00 GMT, online
The jury’s in: What Birmingham wants from its museums. Join us for a webinar exploring stories from behind the scenes of the first citizens’ jury in a UK museum. This event is co-hosted by our Chief Strategy and Creative Officer, Lucy Reid, and Charlotte Holmes, Birmingham Museums’ Trust, alongside some of the citizen jurors, Sara Wajid, co-CEO of Birmingham Museums Trust, Mara Livermore and Rowan Harris from Shared Future, Mathew Beckett from River Rea Films and evaluator Isabella Roberts.
15 - 16 October, Brussels, Belgium
The DemNext team will be at the Democracy R&D conference this year. Claudia Chwalisz, Cities Programme Lead, James Macdonald-Nelson, and Senior Advisor Ieva Cesnulaityte will also be running some workshops.
16 - 17 October, Amsterdam, Holland
Lucy Reid and Cities Programme Coordinator, Hannah Terry, will be running a workshop at the World Cities Culture Summit on 17 October. Lucy will also be speaking in the plenary session.