How do organisers of local climate mini-publics (CMPs) justify initiating such processes to the public? And, what do these justifications reflect about the politics behind CMPs? From local councillors to think tanks, conservation charities to housing associations, those who organise local CMPs draw upon a multitude of competing logics and political framings to justify their use. Unlike studies that assess the inclusiveness or deliberative quality of mini-publics—evaluating, for instance, whether all voices are heard equally, or whether diverse perspectives are represented—this article examines the publicly expressed intentions and expectations of those responsible for establishing these forums. Exploring these factors illuminates a less-explored dimension of deliberative democracy: the ways in which mini-publics are not only arenas for citizen deliberation but also tools leveraged within broader political contexts. This research hence offers a distinctive approach to the study of deliberative democracy by foregrounding the ‘politics of mini-publics’ through a thematic analysis using an original dataset of 61 local CMPs in the UK. Together, these findings reveal how organisers (a) use non-partisan formats in partisan ways; (b) need to balance urgency with incrementalism; and (c) must navigate securing engagement from participants at the same time as keeping expectations of impact at appropriately low levels.

This paper contends that current designs of deliberative mini-publics are unable to fulfil aspirations of genuine, empowered and inclusive deliberation due to uncontested strands of domination. Much research on deliberative mini-publics focuses on the procedural design factors or internal quality of such processes. While such an approach has its merits, it means the wider dynamics and political contexts surrounding deliberative mini-publics are ignored, limiting understandings of where innovation is (or is not) realised. This paper takes seriously the agonist critique of deliberative mini-publics by drawing attention to the dynamics of power and influence that operate “behind the scenes” of mini-publics. Drawing on three design choices of deliberative mini-publics that happen prior to the actual event – recruitment methods of sortition, facilitation training and choosing of expert witnesses – this paper argues that deliberative practice expressed within these forums is illustrative of broader disengagement with proper contestation and dissensus in deliberative theory. By not including such contestatory practices, mini-publics restrict the critical innovation and radical expression that is possible and crucially important to meet climate justice aspirations.

Contemporary climate politics is marked by deep contestation and disagreement over how, or even whether, humanity can steer away from catastrophic planetary changes in the Anthropocene. While some advocate for expert-led or authoritarian decision-making to overcome political division, others argue for inclusive, participatory approaches grounded in deliberative democracy. Across Western democracies, one innovation has been local climate mini-publics (CMPs), designed to represent diverse perspectives and inform policy through organised deliberation. Yet if disagreement is inevitable, what role does it play within these spaces? Critics argue CMPs are overly consensus-oriented, neglecting the intrinsic value of political disagreement, while deliberative democrats suggest disagreement can enhance inclusion and legitimacy. This paper develops a typology of ‘logics of disagreement’ within CMPs, showing how disagreement takes on multiple and varying understandings as either a problem to be overcome or resource to be harnessed. I argue that CMPs tend to tame disagreement, leading to depoliticised outcomes. Nevertheless, there are opportunities for more agonistic forms of contestation when examining the broader CMP context. By clarifying competing theoretical perspectives on disagreement and their practical implications, this paper offers guidance for designing deliberative processes that better reflect the pluralism of climate politics.