New visions of the future instead of constant crisis rhetoric

When political discussions are overshadowed by laments about a crisis, there is less room for shaping the future. What is needed is a redefinition of our narratives – and a vision of the city of 2035 that provides courage, guidance and priorities.

When a national conservative daily newspaper devotes an entire issue to the heading "Shaping the future – the major questions of our time" and presents transformation and sustainability issues as a problem, it is worthy of remark. After all, political conservatism literally aims to preserve existing institutions and processes. For some, restoring the status quo ante is a panacea for regaining economic growth and supposed political and social stability. Terms such as "transformation" and "sustainability" are considered to be trigger words and are called into question.

This gives us cause to reflect more fundamentally on how we politically debate social reform processes and the reorganisation of municipal infrastructure systems. In view of the permanent laments about a crisis in politics, the media and the public, the impression arises that this is precisely what is slowing down the implementation of social change.

"Crises" are encountered everywhere – be it the crisis of municipal finances, of social systems or of democracy, the economic upheavals caused by geopolitical tensions, the infrastructure crisis or the climate crisis. The term "crisis" is originally a Latin word (in ancient Greek “=krisis (κρίσις) meaning is "a critical situation", which "generally represents a climax or turning point in a dangerous conflict situation in a natural or social system". Manfred G. Schmidt describes crises as situations of short duration that are preceded by a massive and problematic state of dysfunction. Such situations offer both opportunities for conflict resolution and risks of exacerbation. The much-used term "polycrisis" suggests an escalation. However, many challenges have built up over years and decades.

The inflationary use of the term "crisis" has unfortunate consequences: when everything and everywhere is in crisis, it is not only social insecurity, mistrust and disappointment that grow. Individual fears of decline and loss in particular begin to manifest themselves in loud anger and are fuelled above all by populist forces. The public discourse is dominated by a bubble of badmouthing. And this despite the fact that we have "restructured" our systems of public services to the limits of their functionality over the years, primarily due to an efficiency paradigm. The diffuseness and apparent self-blockade of the political system, which is fed by the growing disenchantment of the majority with political parties on the one hand and the deliberate distortions of normality by vociferous interest groups on the other, now favours policies that deprioritise or even completely deny existential challenges such as climate change.

The paradox: the socio-ecological transformation movement in science, politics and civil society is also increasingly sinking into resignation. The reason for this is the supposed lack of progress to date, although the facts about the "limits of growth" have been known since 1972 at the latest. Some observers even speak of a profound "system crisis" (Philipp Staab 2025), whereby common modernisation promises and attempts by the state to manage the crisis are delegitimised. Based on their own logic, politics and administration are hardly in a position to permanently bring about fundamental changes to solve all the apparent crises. This is because administration works on the basis of the principle of legality and political mandates in an evolutionary rather than revolutionary way, similar to the political process, which is geared towards finding compromises.

Just how difficult politics is in these times is revealed by the fact that the federal government now has around 30 special funds: in order to correct the shortcomings of recent years in the military and civilian sectors, financial resources are being mobilised in extra budgets on an unprecedented scale. Nevertheless, a spirit of optimism – especially among local authorities – has failed to materialise: "too little", "too complicated", "too slow", "too consumptive", "not sufficiently focused or impact-oriented" is the criticism. Once infrastructural deficits and social imbalances have reached a certain level, they can only be reduced to a limited extent with money. With an estimated financial deficit of around 30 billion euros this year, there is no doubt that the financial situation of local authorities is historically unprecedented. Non-monetary barriers to investment – from the need for skilled labour in public administrations to high legal standards, bottlenecks in the construction industry, changing political majorities, etc. – are adding to this.

Even more transformation? Definitely not! An idea, a vision, or even a plan to resolve this difficult situation? Not a chance. With the criticism and crisis talk of the political mainstream and its populist echo chambers on the one hand and the radicalisation of parts of politics and civil society on the other, we are now experiencing a paralysed discourse that is standing in its own way. It is not only the recipes of the past ("realising of efficiency gains", task and social benefit cuts, dispensing with voluntary tasks, reduction of bureaucracy and standards) that now sound like hollow "bullshit bingo" phrases. The reference to scientific evidence as the sole justification for the need for radical reforms is not convincing either.

In view of this seemingly deadlocked and muddled situation, the question arises as to possible ways out. Should we really bury transformation? Or does the constantly warming planet require the even more uncompromising pursuit of climate targets and "turnaround projects"? As is often the case, the truth lies in the middle. Political interaction is only possible through communication. In order to address anger, resignation and fears in this way, politicians must fundamentally reflect on their own communication patterns. It might help to realise that all actors in the political discourse always have more or less good reasons to argue the way they do due to their respective roles and socialisation (Armin Nassehi 2024). The resulting communication barriers, which are almost a matter of course, can only be broken down through communication. Politics must communicate at a greater level of detail over a longer term. Investments and savings must clearly serve urban objectives. Abstract references to the decades-old narratives of the "mountains of debt facing younger generations" or the "equivalence of living conditions" cannot capture individual fears of decline and loss in the here and now.

We need to counter our crisis frenzy with intoxicating images of the future: In what city do we wish to live in 2035 or 2040? What characterises municipal quality of life in a "nervous age" (Andreas Reckwitz 2017)? What are the priorities and measures with which we will achieve our vision for the future, step by step and across legislative periods? How can we and must we – through the federal government, federal states and local authorities collectively – adapt the legal framework and financial resources in such a way that local authorities are given the necessary scope for action? Our political discourse must be realigned at various levels and conducted in different formats – from state reform to citizen dialogue in neighbourhoods. The real challenge lies in the large number of construction sites that now exist and their interconnectedness. Precisely because local authorities are under financial pressure, simply calling for money is not enough. In order to assert their justified demands, they must formulate their own bottom-up visions of the future and share their proposals with federal and state governments. Taboos are taboo. Offers could range from forms of inter-municipal cooperation to the transfer of tasks to the state and federal government in the area of social services, the centralisation of digitalisation or administrative tasks that are to be performed nationwide anyway, or the rethinking of municipal self-administration in the federal state. Such an exchange of tasks will open up new room for manoeuvre for the city of 2035.

We have to get out of the argumentative padded cell in which we are blocked by counter-arguments (obligation to fulfil tasks, autonomy of self-administration, financial and personnel shortages, lack of responsibility, apparent unwillingness of citizens, state aid law, planning approval complexity for fire protection, local church spires, etc.). To do this, we need to understand the communicative argumentation patterns of populists who question or discredit transformation, sustainability and even minor reforms. But we also need to rethink communication in our "transformation bubble". It makes little sense to create feelings of powerlessness with complex climate models. Instead, we need a new "frame" and comprehensible forms of communication on specific future topics that will improve the quality of life and the environment for cities, neighbourhoods and people.