Citizens' assemblies for value conflicts in Spain: a proposal inspired by Isaiah Berlin

Some political questions are hard because the facts are uncertain. Others are hard because good values pull in different directions, and no amount of extra data will settle them. The end of life, the limits of free expression, the place of religion in public schools, how much a society asks of newcomers: these are questions where liberty, equality, security, compassion and belonging all have a real claim. Isaiah Berlin's value pluralism describes them exactly. Several genuine goods collide, there is no common unit to weigh them, and someone has to choose.

Parties tend to avoid these questions, or turn them into identity battles. Spain should adopt a better procedure for them, and Europe has already tested one.

What the European cases show

Ireland went first. In 2016 its parliament set up a Citizens' Assembly of 99 citizens chosen at random to reflect the country by age, gender, social class and region, plus a chair. According to the Electoral Reform Society's account, they met over five weekends between November 2016 and April 2017, heard 25 experts and read 300 of roughly 12,000 public submissions on the constitutional ban on abortion, the Eighth Amendment. Of the members, 87% agreed the provision should not be kept in full, and 57% recommended replacing it with a clause letting parliament legislate. A parliamentary committee then took up the issue, and in May 2018 voters approved the change in every constituency except Donegal, on a 64% turnout. Politicians who had been reluctant to touch the subject had a tested public basis to act on.

France followed with a question even closer to Berlin's territory. The Citizens' Convention on the End of Life, organised by the Economic, Social and Environmental Council (CESE), brought together 184 citizens chosen by lot for nine sessions and 27 days of debate between December 2022 and April 2023. It adopted its final report with 92% in favour. On the central question, 75.6% backed opening access to assisted dying under conditions. What makes the French case instructive is what it did with the rest. The convention published the shape of its disagreement: 28.2% wanted assisted suicide as the rule and euthanasia as the exception, 39.9% wanted both available as a choice, and 23.2% opposed any opening. The minority's reasons went into the record too: weak application of the existing 2016 law, risks for vulnerable people, and resistance among health professionals. On minors, the convention said openly that its debates were inconclusive.

That is pluralism turned into procedure. The majority view is clear, and the dissent is preserved with its arguments, so that legislators see the whole map of values in play.

Spain has its own precedent. The Asamblea Ciudadana para el Clima, created under article 39.1 of the 2021 climate change law, gathered 100 people selected by an independent lottery, stratified by age, gender, education, region and urban or rural residence. It met from November 2021 to May 2022, worked anonymously, and answered the question of how to build a safer and fairer Spain in the face of climate change. On 6 June 2022 it handed the Prime Minister 172 recommendations grouped under 58 objectives. The OECD counted close to 300 such representative deliberative processes in its 2020 report on the "deliberative wave", so Spain would be joining a well-documented practice.

The proposal

Spain should turn these experiments into a standing procedure for value conflicts, with a few clear rules.

First, a trigger. The Congreso, by simple majority, or the Government can convene an assembly on a question where values clash and parliamentary debate has stalled. The question is written neutrally and agreed by the parties that back the convening.

Second, the membership. Between 100 and 180 residents chosen by stratified lottery, using the criteria already tested in the climate assembly, with elected politicians and party staff excluded. Members are paid for their time and their identities stay protected while they deliberate.

Third, the evidence. At least five weekends, with experts and advocates chosen to cover every serious position, open public submissions and independent facilitation.

Fourth, the output. Recommendations with the percentage for every option voted, and a reasoned minority report written by those who disagree, published together. This is the Berlin rule: the record shows which goods each side put first, and nobody pretends the conflict has vanished.

Fifth, the answer. Within six months the Government replies in writing, recommendation by recommendation, and the Congreso holds a dedicated debate. The decision stays with elected representatives, or with voters where the Constitution requires a referendum.

Why each side should want it

This design combines things that usually travel separately. From the left comes the democratic idea that ordinary people, chosen by lot, deserve an equal voice on the hardest questions, regardless of wealth, fame or party connections. From the liberal and conservative traditions comes respect for representative institutions: the assembly advises, Parliament decides, and the body dissolves when the job is done, with no new permanent agency. From neither comes the pluralist core, which is the published minority report and the duty to answer it. It gives disagreement a dignified place in the record.

The design has to face real risks. Assemblies can be captured through the choice of experts, so the evidence panel needs a balance agreed across parties. They can also be quietly ignored, which is why the duty to respond matters, and Parliament keeps the decision either way.

Spain is a country where, as other work this week shows, citizens reject opponents with unusual intensity on some issues. A procedure that lets a random cross-section of the country work through a value conflict together, and that shows everyone exactly where people of good faith still disagree, is a practical tool for lowering that temperature. Spain has already run one on climate. The next should take on a question where values collide.