Climate activism and the emergence of deliberative innovations in Polish local governance

Several bottom-up processes in Poland challenge earlier Western-centric narratives that depicted civic organizing in the region as weak or underdeveloped for diverging from Western liberal models (Fagan & Buzogány, Reference Fagan and Buzogány2022; Foa & Ekiert, Reference Foa and Ekiert2017; Howard, Reference Howard2008). Scholars highlight the persistence of everyday activism, informal organizing, civic resilience, and acts of solidarity in Poland, particularly as responses to authoritarian tendencies, neoliberal pressures, and moments of crisis (Baća, Reference Baća2022; Jehlička & Jacobsson, Reference Jehlička and Jacobsson2021; McMahon et al., Reference McMahon, Pickering and Pietrzyk-Reeves2024; Polanska & Chimiak, Reference Polanska and Chimiak2016; Theiss et al., Reference Theiss, Kurowska, Petelczyc and Lewenstein2017). However, some challenges to activism in the region remain underexplored, notably its historically fragmented nature (Rymsza, Reference Rymsza, Krenz, Mocek and Skrzypczak2015), its predominantly elitist character, and the persistent difficulty of building a durable and broad social base (Gliński, Reference Gliński1996), tendencies that can be traced in part to Poland’s distinct urbanization path and a relatively recent institutionalization of local civic governance (Kubicki, Reference Kubicki, Mach, Pożarlik and Sondel-Cedarmas2022).

Environmental issues were largely taken up by the anarchist movement, whose members were predominantly secondary school students. Political repression in the mid-1980s (Antonów, Reference Antonów2004; Żuk, Reference Żuk2001) curtailed their organizational development. At the time long-term collective action took the form of underground cultural initiatives, informal organizing around workplaces and parishes, and rural self-organization (Cichońska et al., Reference Cichońska, Snopek and Popera2016; Kubicki, Reference Kubicki, Mach, Pożarlik and Sondel-Cedarmas2022). These informal networks helped pave the way for the mass Solidarity movement in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Cizewska-Martyńska, Reference Cizewska-Martyńska2015; Jacobsson & Korolczuk, Reference Jacobsson and Korolczuk2017; Pietrzyk-Reeves & McMahon, Reference Pietrzyk-Reeves and McMahon2022). Yet the movement’s internal divisions between workers and intellectuals (Ost, Reference Ost2018), combined with the broadly documented anti-socialist sentiment among former Soviet bloc citizens (Szulecka & Szulecki, Reference Szulecka and Szulecki2022; Vilenica, Reference Vilenica2025) and the neoliberal reorientation of the 1990s (Kubicki, Reference Kubicki, Mach, Pożarlik and Sondel-Cedarmas2022), collectively marginalized environmental activism and deepened social polarization. These tensions provided fertile ground for the subsequent rise of populist politics (Bustikova & Guasti, Reference Bustikova and Guasti2017; Stanley & Cześnik, Reference Stanley, Cześnik and Stockemer2019). While ecological organizations in Poland managed to establish national networks in the 1990s, their influence remained limited, reflecting decades of constrained civic activity and a political culture in which environmental advocacy relied predominantly on individual dedication and occupied a peripheral position, remaining largely the domain of educated urban elites (Gliński, Reference Gliński1996; Kubicki, Reference Kubicki, Mach, Pożarlik and Sondel-Cedarmas2022).

Although Poland’s urbanization path left limited space for institutionalized traditions of citizenry self-governance (Kubicki, Reference Kubicki, Mach, Pożarlik and Sondel-Cedarmas2022), the reforms of the 1990s brought a significant shift, introducing a degree of decentralization widely regarded as among the most extensive in the region (Gendźwiłł, Reference Gendźwiłł, Walecka, Guerra and Bértoa2025; Swianiewicz, Reference Swianiewicz2014). However, the functioning of local government remained difficult to navigate, given successive legislative reforms and the strong influence of external expertise, rather than historically embedded traditions of civic self-governance. The entrenched position of long-serving mayors (Gendźwiłł, Reference Gendźwiłł, Walecka, Guerra and Bértoa2025) entrenched clientelist patterns in local policymaking, limiting collective influence over local affairs. This institutional configuration generated a gap between formal decentralization and citizens’ genuine civic agency.

Since the post-2008 socio-economic crisis, Poland has seen the rise of urban movements and grassroots organizing, rooted predominantly in segments of the creative class such as students and recent graduates, whose disillusionment with market-oriented urban governance fuelled civic engagement (Jacobsson & Korolczuk, Reference Jacobsson and Korolczuk2017; Lewenstein et al., Reference Lewenstein, Zielińska and Gójska2020; Pluciński, Reference Pluciński2012; Theiss et al., Reference Theiss, Kurowska, Petelczyc and Lewenstein2017). This civic renewal, however, met with insufficient responsiveness from established local political elites, generating demands for more inclusive decision-making. Within a few years, local groups of urban movements developed sufficient visibility and expertise to place representatives in local councils of major cities, and in some cases to secure positions within local government administrations (Popławska, Reference Popławska2021). As part of a broader transnational diffusion of participatory practices (della Porta, Reference della Porta2020), civic activism in Poland contributed also to the introduction of local civic initiatives, participatory budgeting, and public consultations initiated by civic request (Zielińska & Wilczyńska, Reference Zielińska and Wilczyńska2019). These practices expanded the legal framework for civic participation established through post-transformation reforms (Ustawa, 1990, 2003) and EU cohesion policies following Poland’s accession in 2004 and have since become integral to local democratic governance (Domaradzka, Reference Domaradzka, Hou and Knierbein2017; Lewenstein et al., Reference Lewenstein, Zielińska and Gójska2020; Rymsza, Reference Rymsza2016). Nevertheless, the introduction of these instruments did not automatically translate into meaningful participation and the increase of social trust (Cent et al., Reference Cent, Grodzińska-Jurczak and Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska2014; Martela et al., Reference Martela, Dąbrowska, Flis, Gendźwiłł and Lackowska2026). Surveys conducted in 2022 continued to register a strong demand for greater public participation in policymaking, particularly among younger generations (Swianiewicz, Reference Swianiewicz2024).

The new wave of climate activism, inspired mostly by Greta Thunberg and Fridays for Future (Medoń, Reference Medoń2020; Pluciński, Reference Pluciński2022), has grown rapidly in the late 2010s with new groups, such as Polish branches of Extinction Rebellion, Youth Climate Strike, and Last Generation emerging alongside more institutionalized environmental organizations from 1990s and urban movements. Notably, the consolidation of organized climate activism coincided with a wave of nationwide protests, including those against the tightening of abortion law that gave rise to the women’s movement under the banners of Girls for Girls [Dziewuchy Dziewuchom], Black Protest [Czarny Protest], and All-Poland Women’s Strike [Strajk Kobiet].

It was in this political and civic environment that the first CA in Poland was held in Gdańsk in 2016, as part of the city’s climate adaptation strategy addressing heavy rainfall. The city went on to organize two more assemblies, reinforcing its leadership in participatory climate governance. Lublin followed in 2018, and since then, nearly all major Polish cities have organized CAs, most of them focusing on climate-related issues (Pospieszna & Pietrzyk-Reeves, Reference Pospieszna, Pietrzyk-Reeves, McMahon, Pickering and Pietrzyk-Reeves2024).

The relative openness of some local governments to deliberative innovations during this period can be linked to a broader reconfiguration of political opportunities. Tensions between certain municipal administrations and the national government created incentives for local leaders to experiment with participatory instruments as a means of differentiation and legitimacy building. This context allowed progressive deliberative practices to flourish despite broader democratic backsliding (Cichosz & Ufel, Reference Cichosz and Ufel2022; Krawczyk, Reference Krawczyk2021; Podgórska-Rykała, Reference Podgórska-Rykała2024; Pospieszna & Pietrzyk-Reeves, Reference Pospieszna, Pietrzyk-Reeves, McMahon, Pickering and Pietrzyk-Reeves2024; Rupnik, Reference Rupnik2007).

Taken together, the developments outlined above constitute the institutional and civic environment within which climate CAs emerged in Poland. Patterns of urban engagement, the trajectory of democratic transformation, the evolving role of local self-government, and the growing visibility of local activism as well as transnational climate activism shaped the broader field of possibilities available to civic actors. The following sections explore whether CAs came to be regarded by climate activists as a meaningful institutional option in addressing climate issues in Poland.

Why citizens’ assemblies? Normative and strategic motivations

As discussed earlier, Poland offers diverse local civic engagement opportunities, both contentious (e.g., protests) and non-contentious (e.g., petitions), previously used by activists. How do CAs fit into this broader repertoire?

First, respondents saw CA as a strategic opportunity to ensure that their previous efforts in promoting climate policies would not be in vain (IDI_all). Even though a CA is not legally binding, much like other forms of public consultations, there was greater hope that its results would at least be considered. As one of our interviewees stated:

By contrast, a recommendation adopted by the panel with 80%, percentage that became Polish standard, support was expected to carry real weight [IDI_10], as broad citizen support makes it harder for decision-makers to dismiss proposals [IDI_2,6,12,13] as representing only own perspective of self-selected group (…), not actually the residents [IDI_6]. This legitimacy is particularly valuable in urban policy areas prone to unpredictability, administrative limitations, and for example, in debates potential backlash. In such contexts, strong public backing would complicate opposition efforts [IDI_2,6,12,13].

For some respondents, CA was also seen as a means of testing public opinion, not only regarding the acceptability of activist demands but also in identifying needs that activists might not be aware of. It was noted that, especially for certain types of topics, such as highly controversial ones, it could function as a valuable research tool, much more effective than traditional opinion polls or referendums, where respondents lack the opportunity to acquire knowledge on the subject and often provide answers influenced by media-driven emotions [IDI_3,5].

Respondents noted that experiential knowledge from social and urban movements sometimes surpassed theoretical expertise yet was not easily disseminated to the broader public. Presenting proposals to a randomly selected group of citizens offered hope of reaching a broader audience [IDI_2,7,10,11], which is typically impossible in the case of highly complex and challenging issues:

Assemblies provided a mechanism for bridging the gap, while also deepening activists’ own understanding during preparation [IDI_3,5,13]. Activists also hoped that assemblies would inspire public engagement with climate policies through expert-informed discussion [IDI_4], while also allowing them to delegate responsibility for large-scale demands beyond their capacity [IDI_1,2,7,8,10,11].

While randomness, as we see above, served strategic goals such as wider outreach and legitimacy, the deliberative aspect of CAs was universally valued, particularly in a polarized political context [IDI_all]. A representative of a consensus-based organization argued that democracy must be experienced to be learned, noting that CAs provide a valuable opportunity for this. This respondent also emphasized that involving people in decision-making is essential for them to take responsibility for solutions yet lamented that some climate activists today do not recognize this connection [IDI_1]. There was the belief that the tool needed to be learned and repeated until it could be institutionalized within a legal framework and used regularly. One of the supporters of this approach saw it as a component of democratic system reform—an expression of radical democracy [IDI_5] that could ultimately necessitate structural changes to the separation of powers and, if necessary, even constitutional amendments.

Concerns that recommendations might not align with activists’ goals were alleviated by participants’ exposure to expert knowledge [IDI_all]. Some respondents noted that their arguments were so well supported by evidence that they could not be easily challenged [IDI_6,12]. Additionally, activists often influenced the selection of experts, sometimes being better informed than public officials, which helped ensure that participants’ decisions aligned with the activists’ agenda [IDI_12].

However, simply knowing what experts recommended was considered insufficient for inform decision-making. Some respondents emphasized that the real value of CAs lays in confronting expert knowledge with people’s needs, with “people’s wisdom” [IDI_11]. It was not only the dialogue between participants, and between participants and experts, but also the opportunity to expose panellists to the complexities of public administration that was appreciated, as the latter helps build mutual understanding between citizens and civil servants [IDI_8]. To summarize, CAs were seen as ideal democratic tools because of their epistemic and dialogical potential.

Activists’ experiences with CAs: Democratic potential and design limitations

Over time, especially among respondents from the new wave of climate movements, it became clear that no legal enforcement mechanisms or procedures compelled authorities to act, even when recommendations received over 80% support from panellists. For some it was a surprising realization that a public political declaration by a city president was not enough, marking, as several put it, the first collapse of a romantic view of top-down-supported democratic processes [IDI_3,4,5,8,13]. One respondent reflected that excessive optimism and trust among the group initiating the assembly had been a mistake. They recalled an activist, Mr. X, who would warn: they’ll just cheat us anyway, but whose concerns were dismissed at the time as cynicism from a burnt-out activist. Reflecting, this respondent remarked: From today’s perspective, I think we all should have had a bit more of that internal ’Mr. X’ in us; maybe then the outcomes would have been different [IDI_8]. However, more experienced activists were skeptical of politicians from the outset. Having faced numerous rejections of their demands by local administrations, they planned from the very start to make use of the recommendations, even if these were not implemented.

The mobilizing potential of CAs proved limited. The involvement of ordinary citizens rarely extended beyond the assemblies themselves, and no mechanisms ensured broader integration, which further constrained their impact [IDI_6]. Disillusioned by the weak mobilization effect and the disproportionate effort required, respondents identified alternative strategies as more effective: concentrating on single issues [IDI_6,7,10], carefully timing interventions within investment and consultation processes [IDI_10] and combining legalistic instruments with mobilizational tactics [IDI_3,6]. They further emphasized coalition-building and embedding issues in the local context, which facilitated the recruitment of allies and sustained engagement of core participants [IDI_6,10]. Paradoxically, this capacity was reinforced by the involvement of diverse activist groups in organizing the assemblies, which became a platform for activists’ intergenerational integration.

Activists, particularly those with greater experience in civic engagement and those who had the opportunity to observe the deliberation phase, highlighted several challenges in the design of CAs. While they still considered the tool theoretically well suited, they emphasized that its next iterations should address and improve several of its aspects.

Climate CAs dealt with issues far removed from everyday experience [IDI_6,11,12]. Tensions were noted between producing general policy guidance for officials and developing detailed, implementable solutions, which require geographically or materially specific topics, clearly defined budgetary limits, and consideration of expert-prepared scenarios [IDI_12,13]. None of these practices, however, was systematically applied in the assemblies, contributing to the dilution of recommendations [IDI_12, 13].

As noted in the sections above, informed dialogue was considered the most important feature of CAs as a tool. Nevertheless, it was the way this dialogue was organized that discouraged some of the strongest critics, an effect only partly attributable to COVID-19-related restrictions. Educational, stakeholder, and deliberative sessions were strictly separated, limiting interaction between panellists, experts, officials, and interest groups [IDI_3,9]. While providing panellists with space to discuss independently was seen as essential [IDI_3], the absence of dialogical confrontation reduced some assemblies to mere opinion polls, failing to generate new knowledge or integrate theoretical insights with practical experience of panellist and stakeholders at the same time. Not only the dialogical aspect of this phase, but also its protracted duration, was regarded as a weakness [IDI_3,9,12].

Random selection of participants was generally approved, though one activist noted a paradox: when explaining the concept to family or friends, the idea that ordinary people could make decisions on important matters was met with surprise or skepticism: They were saying: “What? Ordinary people making decisions on such important matters?!” [IDI_5]. According to this interviewee, this highlighted the importance of emphasizing, particularly in public communication, that the decisions made by randomly selected panellists are based on the knowledge provided during the assemblies [IDI_5]. It also pointed to an additional concern: that CAs were insufficiently publicized, despite the substantial efforts invested in their organization, which limited their visibility and perceived impact [IDI_1,13].

Tensions between expectations and unintended outcomes led some respondents to a more nuanced evaluation: CAs were regarded as a valuable participatory instrument only once activist lobbying would be no longer required for their establishment, their role would become transparently institutionalized, and dialogue among the different contributors would be enhanced.

Citizens’ assemblies and institutional constraints

Interpreting respondents’ answers, several shortcomings of the first wave of CAs in Poland become apparent, reflecting broader challenges in local deliberative policymaking.

The organization of CAs was largely taken for granted by both activists and politicians, which led to notable limitations. Assemblies were rarely integrated into a coherent participatory process; in most cases, they functioned as one-off events rather than elements of a long-term strategy. They were tool-driven rather than problem-driven: the procedural framework existed before the issue was clearly defined, and there were often no supporting events to facilitate cross-sectoral dialogue on the recommendations [IDI_6,8,9].

For the youth wave of climate activists, CAs were perceived at the beginning as an almost perfect mechanism, expected to immediately initiate the process of designing climate policies. However, no proactive public information strategies were implemented (except in Warsaw) to keep them informed after the recommendations were submitted for implementation [IDI_1,3,4,5,8,9,13], which in turn shaped how the process was perceived in retrospect.

Budgetary and scheduling frameworks were also largely absent, leaving social actors to improvise the follow-up. Only in Warsaw did activists recall being part of cross-sectoral teams working on the results, a practice confirmed by civil servants evaluating the process during public events (Martela and Wojcieszak, Reference Martela and Wojcieszak2025). The effect was related to personal commitment, not institutional arrangement; without dedicated individuals the implementation of recommendations often stalled once the assembly concluded. This contributed to perceptions of superficiality and led one respondent to describe the process as a way for politicians to pull the wool over people’s eyes [IDI_9].

Activists played a pivotal role in shaping the assemblies. From the activists’ perspective, the event’s impact derived more from its organization and framing than from the substantive content of the recommendations. Their strategic use of recommendations in lobbying efforts demonstrates both their growing effectiveness in navigating institutional channels and the continued opacity of public policymaking in Poland. Despite the formal inclusion of citizen voices, clientelist practices persisted, indicating that while assemblies provided a tool for civic influence, the process remained vulnerable to elite capture.

Finally, even when the organization of the assembly was considered successful, the exhausting efforts required to initiate the process and monitor outcomes sometimes led to the disintegration of activist groups [IDI_1,3,4,5,8,9,13], reflecting a cyclical pattern of mobilization followed by withdrawal.