Consultations in Mali: Drawing on democratic heritage to deepen democratic practice

In a previous analysis (Bleck and Soumano 2025), we observed a paradox when it comes to Malian democracy—most Malians still prefer democracy but are currently and historically dissatisfied with democracy in practice. As a result of this, many Malians have been willing to tolerate junta rule with the goal of reforming institutions of the state—in hopes that this would make them more accountable to the Malian population. We identified a) Mali’s weak formal institutions and b) a tendency of the population and the government to address pressing public policy problems through extra-institutional channels, such as protests or lobbying, as two factors that have historically constrained the Mali’s ability to consolidate democracy. 

For Mali to embark on a more sustainable democratic path, it will need to strengthen and consolidate the formal institutions, including political parties and the National Assembly, that can help to balance and check the overwhelming power of the president.¹ If Malians regularly use these institutions as forums to address their aspirations and grievances, there is a higher likelihood that the institutions will become more responsive rather than being able to “slack” in a context of little citizen pressure (Hirschman 1972). To encourage citizen participation, these institutions will need to build legitimacy. 

Mali is known for longstanding cultural traditions of consultation, deliberation, and tolerance. Malian political culture and preference for “consensus governance” can sometimes create distaste for “one man, one vote” systems that settle issues with a majority vote based on individual perspectives. In this logic, “procedural” or “thin democracy” generates policy solutions without hearing others’ perspectives or forcing broader reflections on what is best for society as a whole.² By contrast, Malians extol the merit of dialogue as an end of its own. Mehler et al offer the Bambara saying as an example “‘sigi ka fo ye damu ye’ (dialogue is a virtue).” (2021, 19)

This essay explores the way that the Malian government could leverage the widespread support for processes of political consultation and deliberation—potentially integrating open and direct participation in formal institutions—to help solve the “crisis of representation.” National conferences and consultations have historically happened at the margins of formal institutions or taken place in punctuated moments of crisis. They have also been mixed in terms of their successes and failures and their perceived legitimacy. However, in part due to the legacy of the 1991 founding conference, there is broad support for this type of political process to directly consult the population.

We present arguments about ways to improve forums for direct participation and a strategy to raise legitimacy and engagement with government institutions, drawing on examples such as the citizens’ assemblies in Australia, Ireland, Belgium, and Switzerland (We the Citizens 2011; Suiter 2018, Fournier et al 2011, Farrell et al 2019; Gerber and Meuller 2018; Macq and Jacquet, 2023). Critical to our discussion is a strategy for a comprehensive integration of these practices into institutions of the state. If deliberative forums remain separated from political discussion in formal institutions, we lose the important link between these institutions and the population. Therefore, this report also focuses on strategies to make parties and representatives more accountable to citizen concerns and preferences.

We examine some of the strengths and weaknesses of Mali’s deliberative and consultative traditions to see ways in which these practices might be better incorporated into formal institutions to strengthen and legitimize democratic institutions. To do so, we start by reviewing historical moments where the government has engaged the population in various types of consultation and deliberation. We evaluate these approaches using criteria established by theorists of deliberative democracy: quality of deliberation that informs citizens, the inclusiveness and legitimacy of who serves as their “representatives” (Mansfield 2012:1), and the ability of consultative forums to achieve policy aims. We conclude by drawing on some examples from other contexts to offer some suggestions for ways that these practices could be incorporated into political institutions.

Download the full report.