Speaker
Description
The structural transition in Lusatia, Germany, prompted by the national coal phase-out, exemplifies the complex interplay between technocratic governance and divergent public narratives. Despite sustained economic stability, bolstered by job creation and infrastructure improvements, public sentiment often remains tied to the decline of the region’s energy-intensive industries. Stories that make headlines tend to depict an unsettled, dissatisfied population and an urban environment resistant to change and wary of difference.
In view of the contingencies surrounding Lusatia’s transition, the national Structural Strengthening Investment Program aims at establishing governance structures that bind various levels of decision making from national to local, which support projects aiming to stage a new aesthetics of transition through flagship structural projects and massive landscape restorations. This multilevel governance approach relies on consensus-driven, technocratic strategies that emphasize compromise and managerial coordination. Such depoliticization tends to be critiqued in social sciences for replacing adversarial politics and stifling radical new imaginaries. However, Lusatia’s case reveals a different dynamic, in which dissent is driven by radical-right polarization, which capitalizes on narratives of exclusion, economic insecurity, and cultural fears, thus creating a complex ethical and political landscape that defies conventional categorizations of the post-political condition.
Drawing on qualitative data from document analysis, stakeholder interviews and focus groups, this study identifies three pathways regional governance structures use to address the challenges of aligning structural policy with regional aspirations. First, counteracting radicalization through accessibility focuses on demystifying the complex lexicon of sustainability transitions and emphasizing equitable outcomes. While the stakeholders underscore the importance of transparent, relatable policies, the emphasis on consensus can paradoxically fuel polarization as the voices that feel left on the other side of environmental justice are picked up and mobilized by populist movements. Second, depoliticizing transition through evidence-based governance prioritizes common interest for a coal phase-out aligning particular interests of mainstream political parties with interests of consensus-driven governance structures, which seek to address dissent by presenting decisions as apolitical and inevitable. Third, public participation is recognized as a mitigative tool for marginalizing radical-right narratives. Stakeholders advocate for an inclusive framework that foster consensus and actively engage publics across plural differences, yet at the operational level they agree there is still much room for enhancing active and direct public involvement.
This research reimagines technocratic governance as both a stabilizing force and a potential source of alienation, offering lessons for managing structural transitions in polarized contexts. By addressing the interplay between consensus-driven governance and dissensus rooted in radical-right polarization, this paper offers insights into balancing technocratic efficiency with inclusive participatory practices.
| Keywords | transition; technocratic governance; depoliticization; polarisation; participation |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
