Professor of political theory at Yale University (United States), Hélène Landemore participated in the governance committee of the convention on the end of life. Author ofOpen Democracy (2020, untranslated), she co-edited the latest issue of the journal Holdings on citizen assemblies (De Boeck, 2022).
As a researcher and as a member of the governance committee, what is your assessment of the end-of-life agreement?
I am indeed judge and judged. As co-organizer, I am delighted with the success of this
convention which marks a new stage for deliberative democracy. The final report is rich, it shows once again that citizens are capable, on a difficult subject, of working out quality political proposals together. He comes out in favor of euthanasia and assisted suicide under conditions, while insisting on the requirement of palliative care and restoring a diversity of opinions.
As a researcher on citizen participation, I was, at first, quite critical of the organization. I arrived with purist convictions, and I realized that it takes time to anchor the culture of participation in an institution like the Economic, Social and Environmental Council. We have made mistakes from which we must learn lessons. We also learned a lot, myself included, and finally managed to work in trust. During the last session, there were very emotional moments between the participants and also between us, the members of the governance committee.
Is the organization of the vote, which drew criticism in mid-February, one of the “mistakes” you mention?
We made mistakes in several votes. The February one caused a stir because the wording of the options narrowed the space of choice. We apologized to the citizens and repaired as best we could. Despite everything, citizens have reiterated their confidence in us each time.
We have also had significant successes, first and foremost this confidence of citizens and also the place given to minorities. During the third session, we heard that people opposed to active assistance in dying did not feel heard. We then decided to create opinion groups, an unusual step in a citizens’ assembly where the drawing of lots aims precisely to eliminate the logic of factions.
Also listen How to reconcile democracy and climate emergency?
This decision allowed the minorities to feel recognized in positions they could better defend. There was then a nice exchange of arguments. I felt the convention was taking off. On the last day, a citizen from the minority group thanked the majority for giving them 50% of the speaking time and 50% of the report.
You have 56.25% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.