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 investigates the evolving landscape of local climate mini-publics (CMPs) in the United Kingdom through a social network analysis approach, exploring the dynamics that shape their design and delivery. As facilitation organisations have become more market-orientated and more professional, this study hence focuses on the subsequent tensions and frictions that exist within this marketplace, given both the history and ideals held by these professionals. Our analysis hence differentiates from a considerable focus within mini-public research which seeks to investigate successes of procedural design factors. If the main aim of a mini-public is assumed to be high-quality deliberation, such literature seeks to explore how this can be secured through procedural means, such as access to information, expert witness testimony and different discursive positions (Fung, 2003; Curato et al., 2021; Boswell, Dean and Smith, 2023). This paper’s approach draws attention to those individuals and organisations who decide those procedural design factors and have the power to steer and influence the deliberation within the CMP. Examining such contextual factors that surround the CMP is crucial for understanding the CMP’s consequences and impact, as well as its internal deliberative quality. This study zooms in specifically on the marketplace of CMPs in the UK, which includes a wide range of facilitators, consultants, academic experts and local governments. By highlighting the context CMPs are operating within, as well as the broader network behind them, allows us to practically map barriers and enablers to the development of the deliberative sphere. Instead of critiquing particular processes or particular organisations, this study tries to understand the role of public deliberation professionals and their broader professional commitments by going to the ‘source’, rather than just the front-stage process of visible CMPs.  

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.