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.

Deliberative mini-publics have become an increasingly prominent feature of climate governance across advanced democracies. In the United Kingdom, their rapid expansion has been accompanied by the emergence of a professionalised deliberative field composed of facilitators, recruitment agencies, advisory bodies, expert witnesses, and network organisations. While existing scholarship debates whether professionalisation enhances deliberative quality or introduces risks of marketisation and elite capture, there is limited empirical evidence on how influence, standards, and authority are structured within this field. This article addresses that gap by mapping the actors involved in the design and delivery of UK climate mini-publics using qualitative social network analysis. The analysis examines how professional ties shape the circulation of expertise, standards, and backstage decision-making. The findings identify important and influential actors within the network, and their place within the wider industry. Here we highlight the unequal concentration and clustering within the network. Rather than finding clear evidence of elite capture, the analysis reveals a form of structural dependency. Responsibility and authority are frequently transferred from commissioning bodies to facilitators, concentrating influence in a small number of actors. While these actors often act as safeguards of deliberative integrity, this reliance also introduces fragility, risks of stagnation, and uneven standards across the field. The article concludes that professionalisation is neither inherently corrosive nor unproblematic. By foregrounding the networked architecture of deliberation, the study contributes a new perspective on how democratic innovations are governed, stabilised, and constrained in practice.

Western democracies increasingly turn to climate mini-publics to address polarization, strengthen legitimacy, and inform policy-making. Yet although disagreement lies at the heart of both climate politics and the normative defence of mini-publics, its character and democratic function remain insufficiently theorised. This paper develops a framework that distinguishes three impulses in democratic theory: containment, transformation, and channelling. Each offers a distinct account of disagreement and its institutional treatment; whether as a threat to stability to be filtered, a resource for epistemic improvement to be transformed, or a constitutive feature of politics to be organised and sustained. Applying this framework to climate mini-publics, I argue that their dominant operational logic reflects containment, supported by a rhetoric of transformation. Across design, facilitation, and post-deliberative stages, disagreement is structured and moderated in ways that prioritise agreement, tractability, and publicly defensible outputs. This orientation generates three risks: legitimacy achieved within the mini-public may not extend beyond it; activist conflict may be neutralised rather than politically mobilised; and unmet expectations of inclusive transformation may undermine trust. The paper thus contributes to two debates. First, it challenges prevailing deliberative interpretations of mini-publics by foregrounding their implicit theory of disagreement. Second, drawing on agonistic insights (particularly those of Bonnie Honig) it reinterprets climate mini-publics as institutions that could channel, rather than resolve, enduring democratic conflict.

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.