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.

With the  growing complexity and urgency of global challenges, such as climate change, greater emphasis is being given to participatory and deliberative approaches in policy-making. Notable here are climate mini-publics (CMPs), which aim to recruit representative samples of the population to deliberate on evidence and recommend policy action. As demand for these processes has expanded, the professional organisations that design and facilitate them have come under closer scrutiny. This article examines how this growing professionalisation of deliberation shapes the integrity and standards of mini-publics, using the case of all local CMPs in the United Kingdom between 2019-2025. While existing literature on professionalisation suggests the elite-driven nature of CMPs risks capture, such claims remain largely unsubstantiated. Drawing on a qualitative social network analysis (SNA) using 22 in-depth interviews with practitioners, this study responds to the abstract worries about professionalisation and/or elite capture. We find that professionalising deliberation has thus far enabled the diffusion of good practice and integrity but also created a set of vulnerabilities linked to market pressures, actor turnover and structural dependencies. Hence, professionalisation presents a paradox for deliberative democracy; simultaneously enhancing procedural consistency and efficiency while constraining innovation and resilience. 

Democratic innovations such as climate citizens’ assemblies are often presented as remedies for political deadlock, polarisation, and public disagreement. Yet these claims rest on contested assumptions about the nature of political disagreement and how democratic institutions ought to respond to it. This paper develops a novel theoretical framework that identifies three distinct “impulses” toward disagreement in democratic theory: containment, transformation, and channelling. Each impulse offers a different account of whether disagreement is a threat to stability, a problem to be revised through deliberation, or a constitutive feature of politics to be institutionally managed rather than overcome.

The paper applies this framework to climate deliberative mini-publics, arguing that while these processes are rhetorically framed as transformative, their operational logic is often closer to containment. This mismatch generates a set of democratic risks, including limited legitimacy beyond the forum, the marginalisation of activist conflict, and the potential depoliticisation of climate governance. Rather than expecting mini-publics to dissolve disagreement or generate universally binding legitimacy, the paper argues for a reframing of their democratic value as institutions that can channel persistent conflict while enabling collective action. The framework offers a new way of evaluating democratic innovations by focusing on how they position disagreement, exclusion, and political loss.

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.

This blog examines the growing use of local climate mini-publics (such as assemblies, juries, and panels) across the United Kingdom between 2019 and 2024, arguing that these deliberative forums deserve more attention than national climate assemblies. Based on a database of 59 local processes, I highlight their varied aims, formats, and impacts, noting that many were commissioned by local authorities and that their focus ranged from broad climate issues to specific policy areas like air quality and transport. The blog discusses both the benefits and limitations of local mini-publics, including enhanced debate and community engagement, as well as ongoing challenges with legitimacy and inclusivity. It concludes with suggestions for improving design and practice to strengthen the effectiveness of these democratic innovations in local climate governance.