Image source: Timur Shakerzianov via Unsplash
By Klára Odstrčilová
Democracy in practice means different things to different people. Indeed, even in the academic literature, we encounter various conceptions of this term depending on the perspectives of individual political and social actors. This is precisely how the European research project MeDeMAP views democracy. Within its framework, academics—not only from Charles University—are examining the ways in which democracy actually manifests itself in Europe. One of the tools they use for this is the experimental method of the citizens’ parliament. While this is a relatively common participatory format in many European countries, it was the very first citizens’ parliament of this type in the Czech Republic. According to the participants themselves, it was a very successful first step; at the same time, however, they pointed out that future debates should also include the more extreme segments of society.
The first citizens’ parliament in the Czech Republic
Twenty participants from across generations and regions of the Czech Republic took part in the experiment. Together, they debated measures that could contribute to improving the functioning of the media in a democratic society. The discussions took place during four meetings held between March and June 2025. The meetings had a predetermined thematic framework and expert input, but the participants themselves chose the format of the voting and the specific topics of discussion.
The process resulted in 31 specific proposals. Participants expressed strong support for independent, professional, and publicly accountable media. At the same time, concerns were raised about political influence, insufficient transparency, and the loss of trust that the media faces in the eyes of the public. In response to these issues, participants adopted several key recommendations—including strengthening the independence of public media by changing the method of appointing their boards, introducing oversight mechanisms with public participation, and maintaining multi-source funding independent of government power. More information about the adopted resolutions can be found on the project website.
Civic democracy as a learning process
Communication between researchers and participants did not end with the conclusion of the parliaments. Participants subsequently had the opportunity to reflect on both the course of the individual meetings and the format of the civic parliaments themselves. Some of them felt that, especially at the beginning, they were unable to fully grasp the process in a way that would allow them to be satisfied with the results of their work.
“If everything before had been just a prelude and the real parliament were to begin now—say, with another four meetings—I think we would have reached much more interesting conclusions,” Luboš Pavlovič said after the meetings.
Participants identified the lack of time as the main problematic aspect of the first meetings. “We were learning the ropes. If we had known how to do it, we would have taken on fewer issues to address,” Irena Eibenová said in an interview. Others expressed similar views; Josef Tokár said that “it would have required more time than those 8 hours.” According to Luboš Pavlovič, it was not possible to cover and resolve more topics within such a limited timeframe, which would have required a greater number of meetings.
At the same time, some participants pointed to the need for stronger expert guidance. As Amanda Baxová noted: “Generally, we weren’t well-informed enough, but it’s not easy for the whole group to grasp the topic. We simply had gaps in our understanding.” Luboš Pavlovič offered a different perspective; despite the limited expertise, he defended the relevance of the outcomes: “My main issue was that many people said they couldn’t have an opinion because they lacked the expertise.”
Overall, participants rated the later resolutions as particularly more valuable. However, they were critical of their wording. “When I looked back at the resolutions, I thought some of them sounded strange. They could have been worded better, but at the same time, they simply came from us, and we’re not experts,” said Amanda Baxová. Aataya Yara Abu shared a similar view: “Some resolutions seemed a bit overcomplicated to me; they could have been written in a more human way,” though she added that she considers this to be the essence of the democratic process: “that a group of people decides on something, and it’s not just up to us.”
Was the debate too peaceful?
A recurring theme in the evaluations was satisfaction with the atmosphere of the debates. “Everyone was friendly and considerate toward one another; that surprised me,” said Josef Tokár, adding: “It was never unpleasant. (…) We behaved civilly. Just as it should be in a democracy.” Aataya Yara Abu assessed the discussions similarly: “The discussions always took place with mutual respect. No one was condescending; there was a safe space to ask questions. (…) Even if someone had a different opinion, they tried to explain it, but there were no arguments.”
However, not everyone viewed the calm nature of the debate positively. Some would have welcomed more heated clashes and the presence of more radical views. “There were no clashes. (…) There were no voices calling for the abolition of Czech Television, or those that would have supported the commercialization of the media more,” said Luboš Pavlovič. Irena Eibenová held a similar view: “I wanted different perspectives regarding public media. For example, groups of people who undermine their authority here.”
Nevertheless, participants generally found the personal discussions with people of different generations and opinions to be very enriching. “In the end, we agreed that the style of communication focused on the issues enriched us all,” said Amanda Baxová. Many also noted that the experience positively influenced their ability to discuss topics in everyday life, such as within their families.
Criticism of the media
The main topic of the individual meetings was the media and its role in democracy. Many participants noted that through their participation, they gained a deeper understanding of how the media works. “Thanks to the perspectives of experts and other citizens who took part in the project, I better understand how the media works and what a journalist’s job entails,” Josef Tokár reflected.
At the same time, many participants’ perception of media content changed. Karel Prohaska pointed to the lack of expertise among media professionals and their responsibility for the quality of content: “Stories are told, but the context is not considered. They offer commentary where credible information is expected.” This critical view was not limited to public media. “Thanks to the citizens’ parliament, I take information from the media as only partially true; above all, they try to capture the public’s attention, and accuracy or truthfulness is adjusted,” said Vilemina Svobodová. Others considered media regulation, given its influence on the public, to be a necessary step for the future.
The future of citizens’ assemblies in the Czech Republic
“This experiment could serve as a starting point and inspiration for how citizens’ assemblies might function in other areas,” said Amanda Baxová. Participants spoke about their experiences mostly very positively and viewed the format of citizens’ parliaments as a model that could contribute to strengthening democracy in the Czech Republic. At the same time, however, they pointed out that it is not a flawless method and that the role of professional assistance is key in this process.
“Before I experienced it firsthand, I viewed this method more optimistically,” Amanda Baxová added in conclusion. According to Aataya Yara Abu, the group’s composition was problematic: “The group was very homogeneous—essentially white. The topics often concerned minorities, but they were almost entirely unrepresented.” More participants would have appreciated a more diverse or more opinionated group of discussants. Overall, however, they considered the experiment beneficial: “I would like to see something like this operating routinely in the Czech Republic,” said Irena Eibenová.
As Josef Tokár summarised: “Citizen participation is something we need to start working on intensively.”
Opinions expressed here are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views, policies or positions of the EJO or the organisations with which they are affiliated.
This article was first published on: https://cz.ejo-online.eu/ The original piece is available here: https://cz.ejo-online.eu/8029/etika-a-kvalita-zurnalistiky/takhle-by-mela-fungovat-demokracie-obcansky-parlament
