Energiekonflikte und Demokratiekrise. Eine radikaldemokratische Perspektive auf das Ringen um Gemeinwohlziele der Energiewende

Climate change is very present in public debates (again), at the latest since the Fridays for Future protests. This manifested recently in the intensity of societal controversies in which, for example, the coal phase-out was negotiated. At the same time, local conflicts over specific energy projects are on the rise. Energy conflicts are particularly acute, among other reasons, because they often form focal points for disputes over the recognition of certain interests as legitimate common good interests. These conflicts are first and foremost a reaction to the design of the energy transition and, at the same time, have an impact on it. In addition, these conflicts are in a reciprocal relationship with the political culture of a society. They are both an effect and a co-producer of the ideas of democracy negotiated in society. This article makes a twofold contribution to the analysis of common good conflicts in the German energy transition. First, empirical results of energy transition research are interpreted with regard to the struggles over the definition and prioritization of common good goals of the energy transition. A key observation is that energy conflicts reveal phenomena of a crisis of democracy that cannot be adequately addressed in negotiations over concrete energy projects. Second, the findings on common good conflicts in the energy transition are discussed in the light of democratic theory. It is argued that the lack of willingness (on the part of government policy actors) to engage in conflicts over the prioritization of common good goals of the energy transition is a central deficit. In combination with a one-sided orientation towards the deliberative model of democracy (in the processes of implementing energy projects), this exacerbates the tendencies of a crisis of democracy. From a radical democratic perspective, there is a need for agonistic arenas of dispute in which political opponents compete to implement their respective energy transition visions.