On 26th of July 2023, the Risk Society and Policy Research Center (RSPRC) of National Taiwan University hosted a lecture by distinguished Professor Andreas Klinke from the Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada. He has been exploring different topics like cosmopolitanism, globalization, risk society, sustainable development, and transnational democracy for years. The captivating lecture was about post-normal politics.
In the beginning, Professor Klinke said we are experiencing epochal changes at all socio-political levels, like the Industrial revolution, predicted by Ulrich Beck. The old and new uncertainties and different sort of risks were inevitably interwoven during the transformation. He then referred to "global socio-material system," by the sociologist John Urry, to describe the inevitable natural-social interrelations between issues and unmet needs. Typical examples were the climate, energy, biological diversity, world economy, and world politics issues.
Professor Klinke then shared that experts in political science and political sociology have recognized that conventional democratic governance are facing challenges such as fragmentation, lack of coordination, inefficiency, and ineffectiveness. The problems exist in both domestic and global governance, as seen in Covid, climate change, and decarbonization efforts. Professor Klinke proposed the "Post-normal Politics and Governance of Uncertainty and Risk" to improve the conventional approaches to decision-making, politics, and regulation related to risk. This concept advocates incorporating deliberative democracy to address uncertainties and risks in governance. This comprehensive proposal includes descriptive, functional, explanatory, and normative aspects, is based on previous collaborations with Ortwin Renn, and will be a guide for future research. Based on these insights, Professor Klinke had advocated for an architecture of post-normal risk politics and governance. Four major authorities have specific tasks and responsibilities in this structure.
The first is mediation authority, which is established through public activity and discourse in the public sphere and essential for addressing complex challenges and providing a democratic foundation for governing authorities to collaborate. In democratic societies, the public sphere fosters communication and exchange of opinions, forming public will. However, its high standards may not be fully met in illiberal contexts or at the global level.
Epistemic authority is about obtaining a trustworthy knowledge of uncertainty and risk. It relies on recognized expertise from scientific communities and institutions. This authority is important because it guides political decisions and public opinion by providing trustworthy information. In post-normal politics and governance, the credibility and trustworthiness of epistemic authority are essential, especially in an age of post-factuality and post-truth.
The third Professor Klinke shared is the associational authority, involving deliberations among groups and stakeholders dealing with the challenges of uncertainty and risk phenomena. Its aim is to establish a desirable ontological account of human existence and social organization considering uncertainty and risk, promoting what is right, good, and sustainable for the common good of all. Associational authority is crucial in guiding morals and shaping actions to benefit society.
The fourth authority, teleological authority, serves as a focal point for the public sphere and helps people participate in decision making about risk through discussing and creating policies together. It plays a crucial role in empowering ordinary citizens to contribute actively to shaping the future of their society. By providing a democratic space for rational reasoning and justifying forward-looking goals and means, teleological authority ensures that public deliberations lead to informed and meaningful policy outcomes. Through this participatory process, citizens gain sufficient knowledge and understanding to address uncertainties and anticipate future outcomes, making it a vital and important democratic authority.
Professor Klinke saw post-normal politics and governance of uncertainty and risk as essential for democratic progress, enhancing representative democracy within liberal societies and promoting democratization and cosmopolitanization in International Relations. He also saw the potential to improve conventional domestic risk regulation by integrating deliberative democracy. He justified this through two main reasons: overcoming problems in representative systems, and informal realization of post-normal politics in some countries. However, he acknowledged the need for more institutional adjustments at global levels. Despite challenges, he remained optimistic that the post-normal approach can counter new global trends, as demonstrated by worldwide transnational experiments.
After Professor Klinke's presentation, professor Chou Kuei Tian, director of RSPRC, agreed that post normalcy is highly relevant to current social risks and uncertainties. He stated that, since 1990, numerous debates on nuclear energy, pandemics and others have added uncertainty to human development globally (cosmopolitanization). The governments worldwide have sought experts assistance in risk communication and education to address climate change, but success has been limited. Within this context, the important concept of deliberative democracy emerged. Then he emphasized Taiwan's potential for global contributions and cited the active Taiwan STS Association. Subsequently, Taiwan embraced deliberative democracy around 2000, which gradually transformed its policymaking. In the conclusion, Professor Chou summarized Professor Klinke's concepts of four authorities, compared them to "civic epistemology" and "socially robust knowledge," created by Sheila Jasanoff and Helga Nowotny, and explained what could Taiwanese people contribute to the world. He invited Professor Ho Ming-Sho to continue the discussion on Professor Klinke's presentation.
Professor Ho concurred with Professor Klinke's application of the framework in sociological theory, addressing difficulties in teaching and this framework as a blueprint to current issues. He noted Professor Klinke's modes is more normative than descriptive. Then Professor Ho raised questions regarding the terms "authority" and "teleology." He found "authority" confusing, suggesting it should represent a domain for communication, not a governmental aspect. He also questioned "teleology," viewing it as a broad plan for policy execution. Professor Ho also expressed his concerns over skepticism toward science and the idea of cosmopolitanism, especially after the recent pandemic. He observed a tendency to resist scientific findings and favor partisanship, which pose challenges to liberal democracy. In conclusion, professor Ho thanked professor Klinke for his enlightening presentation.
Professor Klinke addressed professor Ho's question about "authority," acknowledging its complexity but stressing its institutional necessity for the democracy. Despite potential resistance, he emphasized the importance of creating this new authority and rebuilding trust, which has decline, especially recently. He argued that institutionalizing the post-normal approach is essential to rebuild trust and engage citizens beyond elections. He also underscored that democracies rely on science, making this approach a strong force against prevailing tendencies in different countries.
After Professor Klinke's response, Professor Chihyuan Yang from Cheng Chi university shared his research on Taiwan's commitment to reducing nuclear energy after 2011's Fukushima as a respond to Professor Klinke's research. Two projects launched in 2012: "Millions Rooftop PVs" and "Thousands Wind Turbines," contributed to the growth in renewable energy from 2.3% of total electricity generation in May 2016 to 8.95% (excluding pumped hydro power) by April 2023. The government also aims to reach 20% renewable energy by 2025. Although these mega projects created some environmental and economic value, they have provoked debates on their impact on marine species, particularly Finless Porpoises and Taiwanese White Dolphins. In this context, Prof Yang raised three questions related to addressing wicked environmental problems: (1) who should initiate building networks of experts when prior networks are lacking; (2) the appropriateness of using Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for associational deliberation; (3) how to represent the interests of the diverse and internally divided public in decision-making processes. These questions highlighted the complexities of managing wicked problems and the need for inclusive and effective approaches in environmental decision-making.
In response to the questions related to the offshore energy and risk complexities, Professor Klinke emphasized the ontological differences in problem sources and risks, suggesting the need for tailored approaches. He points out the inconsistencies in Taiwan, where epistemic deliberations and authority exist but lack of participatory involvement. Using public consultations in Germany and Canada as examples, he agreed that associational deliberation transforming into teleological deliberation is limited, and emphasized the need of institutionalization again.
In the Q & A session, the audience asked questions related to stakeholders, motivating citizens, and Germany's policy-making and energy dependence. In response, Professor Klinke emphasized the private sector's role in post-normal politics and governance and shared his experience in facilitating stakeholder meetings. He noted that, while stakeholders may initially resist openness, discussions could evolve into argumentative exchanges. By recognizing the difficulty of balancing seriousness and inclusivity, he believed no one-size-fits-all approach in addressing this issue. Concerning citizen engagement in public discussions, he stressed starting early in education to foster active citizenship.
In response to questions about Germany's post-2018 democratic policy-making and energy dependence on Russia, Professor Klinke emphasized his concerns over Germany's declining education system and reliance on importing resources. He expressed worries about environmental and social consequences, particularly regarding China. While Germany is exploring new partnerships, like with Saudi Arabia, Professor Klinke urges caution and pragmatism in managing resource dependency. In conclusion, Professor Chou highlighted the importance of public deliberation to deal with the uncertainty and risks.
