Citizens' Climate Assembly: a test of political will to cooperate

It is a rare sight in the usually heated climate debate: 175 randomly selected Dutch citizens, from Terschelling to Goes, aged 16 to 80, who spend seven weekends in discussion with each other — and emerge as a united group. Yet that is exactly what the National Citizens' Climate Council has demonstrated. On Monday, the participants presented their recommendations to the cabinet and the House of Representatives: 23 proposals, 13 of which received more than 75% support, ranging from halving food waste to structural changes in spatial planning and the transition to a circular economy.

But what makes the process particularly special is how it came about. Despite differing backgrounds, political preferences, and attitudes toward climate change, a shared basis grew step by step. Participants listened to each other, sought nuance, and made room for differing perspectives. “Not that there were never any disagreements,” states the report of their expedition, “but it was precisely because of this that the advice became richer.”

A democratic experiment with impact

The citizens' assembly focused on three central themes: food, use of goods, and travel. The question from politicians: How can we make these everyday areas more climate-friendly without losing people?

From the National Citizens' Assembly on Climate Report

The proposals range from a six-year warranty on electronics to a national strategy for healthy food, from reducing air travel to encouraging working from home and cycling. A striking number of measures touch on systemic change: revising spatial planning, pricing polluting products, and a greater role for the government in shaping long-term policy.

The report sends a clear message: citizens not only want more clarity, but also more control from the government, provided that it actually engages in dialogue with society.

The magic of difference: Nienke Meijer on what really happened

In the afterword, independent chair Nienke Meijer calls the process “a magical journey.” Not because it was easy, but precisely because it involved tensions, doubts, and clashes. “You don't have to agree with each other to be able to work well together,” she writes. “On the contrary, when you create space for it in the right way, difference can become your greatest strength.”

Meijer describes how participants traded soccer games, services, and birthdays for meeting rooms in Utrecht. How people with completely different perspectives learned to understand each other, or at least respect each other. And how the process changed her own view of change forever.

“What I hadn't expected was that this would become such a personal journey... that my view of the world and how change really works would never be the same again.” That personal tone contrasts with the political reality outside the room, which often revolves around mistrust, short-term thinking, and polarization. The participants felt that tension: according to Meijer, prejudices and public doubts about the legitimacy of the deliberations became apparent to them.

Nevertheless, everyone persevered. “What touched me was the resilience of the people who together form this citizens' assembly: they gave me hope and optimism. Because no matter who you encounter, there is always more that connects you than divides you.”

Nienke Meijer, National Citizens' Climate Council

From self-reliance to mutual reliance

The common thread running through her afterword is perhaps the most urgent lesson for politics: “As a society, we desperately need this.”

Not the citizens' assembly as a holy grail, but places where differences come together, where citizens engage with each other and weigh complex issues together. Meijer sees this as the foundation of the democracy of the future, a democracy that does not fall back on incidental politics, but mobilises the wisdom of the collective.

Now it's up to The Hague

The citizens' assembly will remain together for another year to monitor developments regarding the advice. The call to politicians is explicit: “Take control, think big, make long-term policy, solve problems, and be transparent. Don't just say that citizens need to be listened to more; actually listen to them. And then act on it.”

The cabinet itself requested this advice. According to Meijer, society can count on it now being implemented. And that is precisely what makes this citizens' assembly more than a participatory experiment: it is a test of the political will to steer the Netherlands in the coming decades. Meijer says, "Democracy is so much more than voting once every four years. It is a valuable enrichment of our democracy. "

Or, as the 175 participants themselves put it: if they could work it out together, why couldn't The Hague?