Deliberative mini-publics (DMPs) are widely promoted as institutional solutions to the crisis of representation. Yet, despite their proliferation across local, national, and supranational arenas, they have failed to counter the political appeal of populism, which more effectively mobilises citizens and gains power. This paper argues that accounts of DMPs misdiagnose the crisis by framing it primarily as a procedural deficit, neglecting a deeper dimension that populism exploits: the erosion of collective political agency. While DMPs emphasise inclusive deliberation and expert-informed recommendations, they often remain technocratic exercises, producing limited tangible outcomes and weak connections with broader publics. Drawing on debates with leading proponents of DMPs (James S. Fishkin, Hélène Landemore, among others) and on Ernesto Laclau’s conception of populism as the construction of a collective political subject, the article shows why mini-publics are structurally ill-equipped to generate the normative, motivational, and executive conviction required to reshape democratic politics. Rather than endorsing populism, the paper shifts the focus from institutional design to political agency, arguing that democratic renewal depends on rebuilding organizations capable of aggregating preferences, mobilizing citizens, and exercising political power – roles historically performed by political parties.