Democracy in practice can mean different things to different people. After all, even in academic literature, we encounter varying conceptualizations of this term, depending on the perspectives of individual political and social actors. This is precisely the lens through which the European research project MeDeMAP approached democracy.  Researchers from Charles University and nine other academic institutions and research institutes examined the ways in which democracy is practised across Europe and the role the media plays in shaping these processes and practices. One of the formats they used as part of the project was the Citizens’ Parliament, also known as a Citizens’ Assembly, a participatory format in which citizens discuss public issues and formulate recommendations on how best to address them.

While in many European countries this is a relatively common participatory format, it has been used only rarely in Czechia, and this was the first citizens’ assembly focusing on media and democracy. According to the participants, it represented a successful first step toward greater public involvement in democratic decision-making. At the same time, they pointed out that future debates could include more ideologically diverse segments of society, to further broaden the range of perspectives represented.

The First Citizens’ Assembly in Czechia focusing on media and democracy

The Czech Citizen Parliament on Media and Democracy brought together 20 participants from different generations and regions of the Czech Republic. Together, they debated measures that could help improve the functioning of media in a democratic society. The discussions took place during four full-day meetings held between March and May 2025. While the meetings had a predefined thematic framework and included expert input, the form of voting and the specific topics of deliberation were decided by the participants themselves.

The process resulted in 31 concrete proposals, or resolutions. Participants expressed strong support for independent, professional, and publicly accountable media. At the same time, concerns were voiced about political influence, insufficient transparency, and the loss of trust that media face in the eyes of the public. In response to these problems, the participants adopted several key recommendations – including strengthening the independence of public service media by changing the way their supervisory councils are appointed, introducing oversight mechanisms with public participation, and maintaining multi-source funding independent of governmental power. More information about the adopted resolutions can be found on the project website.

Critical approach towards the media

The main focus of the citizens’ assembly was the Czech media’s role in supporting democracy. Several participants reported that through their participation in the assembly they gained a deeper understanding of how media function. “Thanks to the perspectives of experts and other citizens who took part in the project, I better understand how the media work, [and] what the work of a journalist entails,” reflected Josef Tokár, when looking back at his experience in the citizens’ assembly.

For many participants, this understanding changed the way they perceive media content. Karel Prohaska pointed to the insufficient expertise of media professionals and their responsibility for maintaining content quality: “Stories are told, but the broader context is not provided”. Critical views were not limited to public service media. “Thanks to the citizens’ assembly, I take information from the media as only partially true; above all, they try to attract the public, and accuracy or truthfulness is adjusted [accordingly]”, said Vilemina Svobodová. Given the significant influence media have on the public, several parliamentarians considered more thorough media regulation to be a necessary step for the future.

A Debate Too Peaceful?

A recurring theme in the parliamentarians’ evaluations of their experience in the citizens’ assembly was satisfaction with the atmosphere of the debates. “Everyone was accommodating and considerate of each other, which surprised me,” said Josef Tokár, adding: “It was never unpleasant. (…) we behaved in a civilised way. As it should be in a democracy.” Aataya Yara Abu similarly evaluated the discussions: “The discussions always took place in mutual respect. No one was condescending, there was a safe space to ask questions. (…) Even when someone had a different opinion, they tried to explain it, but there were no arguments or fights.”

While appreciating the civil nature of the debates, some parliamentarians would have welcomed sharper confrontations and the presence of more radical views. “There were no frictions. (…) the voices [for instance] that would want to abolish the Czech Television were missing, or those that would support greater commercialisation of the media,” said Luboš Pavlovič. Irena Eibenová held a similar position: “I wanted different perspectives regarding public service media. For example, groups of people who would question the authority of public service media.”

Also, according to Aataya Yara Abu, the composition of the group had its limitations, representing mostly the “ethnically dominant” segments of the Czech society, while minorities were underrepresented.

Overall, participants found the debates with people of different generations and opinions as very enriching. “In the end, we agreed that the way we communicated about the different issues enriched us,” said Amanda Baxová. Many also stated that the experience positively influenced their ability to discuss issues in everyday life, for example in family settings.

Citizens’ Democracy as a Learning Process

Reflecting both on the course of the citizens’ assembly’s sessions and on the format itself, participants experienced their participation as a learning process, including how democracy works.

Regarding the challenges they faced, some parliamentarians felt that, especially at the beginning, they were not able to fully grasp the process in a way that would leave them fully satisfied with the outcomes of their work. “If everything before had been just a prelude, and now the real parliament had begun, say another four meetings, I think we would have arrived at much more interesting conclusions,” said Luboš Pavlovič.

As Amanda Baxová put it: “In general, I think we were not informed enough, but it’s not easy for the whole group to understand the topic. We simply had gaps in our knowledge.” She also added that the expert presentations were very helpful and often inspired her to do additional self-studying, and that the overall process, knowledge and quality of the group’s work improved over time.

Participants identified the lack of time as a particularly restraining aspect, especially for the initial meetings. Josef Tokár said that it “would have needed more time than those 8 hours [that each meeting lasted].” In that amount of time, according to participant Luboš Pavlovič, it was not possible to cover and resolve multiple topics, which could have been addressed through a greater number of meetings.

While some participants pointed to their lack of expertise, especially at the beginning, some other participants offered a different perspective, validating the relevance of  ‘ordinary’ citizens participating in such deliberative processes. For instance, Luboš Pavlovič offered a different perspective, defending the relevance of the outputs coming from regular citizens, despite perceived limited knowledge: “My main problem was that many people were saying they couldn’t have an opinion because they didn’t have the expertise.”

Overall, the parliamentarians felt that their skills improved over time, and evaluated the later resolutions as being of higher quality: “Gradually, it became clearer to us how this could work in practice,” Irena Eibenová said.

At the same time, while they supported the ideas and claims behind the resolutions, the formulation of the resolutions was not always easy. As Amanda Baxová said: “Resolutions could have been formulated better. But at the same time, they simply came from us, and we are not experts.” Similar were the views of Aataya Yara Abu, who said: “Some of the resolutions felt a bit overcomplicated to me”, but she added that having a group of selected people making decisions collectively, and not everything turning out perfectly, “that’s simply the essence of democracy”.

The Future of Citizens’ Assemblies in Czechia

Participants described their experience mostly in very positive terms and perceived the format of citizens’ assemblies as a model that could help strengthen democracy in Czechia: “This experiment could be a starting point and an inspiration for how citizens’ assemblies might function in other areas as well,” said Amanda Baxová. “I would like something like this to be standard practice in Czechia,” said Irena Eibenová, expressing a similar sentiment. As Josef Tokár summed it up: “Citizen participation is something that needs to be worked on intensively.”