Shielding deliberation 150 citizens at a time? Competing narratives of citizens’ assemblies as drivers for a better-informed EU citizenry

This paper reveals a discursive struggle in the EU “deliberative wave” to define under which leadership and methodologies Citizens’ Assemblies (CAs) are institutionalised in the EU. Despite the lack of academic consensus, disinformation is an articulating element of the different competing narratives. The research question guiding this paper is: How do the EU “deliberative wave” actors frame CAs as drivers of a better-informed citizenry? Through theory-building methods, semi-structured interviews, and drawing on how CAs are framed as tools against disinformation, four prevailing narratives are identified: anti-political deliberation, self-legitimising deliberation, scientific deliberation, and radical deliberation. CAs do not necessarily foster a better-informed citizenry or a more inclusive democracy: each narrative implies a different normative conception of the public sphere and democracy. Depending on the type of actor and their objectives, they will gravitate towards the narrative that best allows them to position their particular interests.