A form of Citizen Deliberative Council pioneered in Germany. It involves numerous simultaneous 25-person Citizen Jury (cells), all addressing the same subject. The randomly selected citizen participants spend much of their time in 5-person subgroups. The final statements from the numerous cells are collected up and integrated into one "Citizens' Report" which is delivered to the convening authority. See

How does it work?


Twenty-five people are picked at random through the official registration offices. These people serve more then 200 [person-]days working as paid jurors in Planning Cells (PCs). A successful PC is generally limited to a four-day time period, which is sufficient.

Each PC involves the following:

  1. A definite task: planning, evaluating problems or solutions, preparing new laws or necessary regulations,
  2. Relevant information: from all sides, by the best experts, vis-a-vis situations, hearings or on-site demonstrations,
  3. Paid time: citizens are free to discuss and to understand,
  4. A small group arena: five jurors sit together for a given period of time and exchange facts, views, and experiences; membership rotates at random [so] an individual is exposed to another four group members six times a day, and
  5. A fact-based expectation of acceptance of the groups proposals.

More than one PC is run, in order to produce reliable results which are accepted by the population and its politicians. Local problems usually need six PCs, whereas bigger problems call for 12. Recently, there have been projects utilizing 20-24 PCs. It is hoped that a time will come when millions of people every year will have the chance of participating in the solution of various public problems in different fields.

This instrument has remarkable effects not only on the output - the "Citizens Report" presents fully informed, innovative, acceptable recommendations - but also on the people involved.


Dienel, P. and O. Renn. "Planning cells: A gate to fractal mediation." In Renn, O, et al.Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Boston: Klewer Academic (1995), pp. 117-140.

Abelson J, Forest P-G, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E and Gauvin F-P. "Deliberations about Deliberation: Issues in the Design and Evaluation of Public Consultation Processes," Mc Master University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Research Working Paper 01-04, June 2001. A Review of Public Participation and Consultation Methods

Category Practice | Category Citizen Deliberative Council





  • You can open and close cards in place. Just click on ~1383/3259.png or the card name.
  • To get to the page (and web address) for a card, click on ~1709/3792.png.
  • When you're editing, to create links within the website (even to a card that doesn't yet exist), put double square brackets around some text, like this.

To learn more see the Wagn documentation.


If you have questions, contact the Process Arts wiki support team. We may also be online live, or you can just ask your question here and someone will answer it shortly:

see where we are also listing similar practices

  --Michel Bauwens (Not signed in).....Sun Jan 31 00:53:33 -0800 2010

The Bohm Dialogue, especially Collective Reflection has significance for me in terms of artistic critique and dialogue.

If one wanted to connect this to Jungian thought I'd relate to that.

  --Srule Brachman (Not signed in).....Mon May 21 17:09:16 +0000 2012





Wheeled by Wagn v. 0.11.7