In the tradition of the new social movements and participatory theories of democracy, governance, i.e. horizontal, inclusive, conflict-avoiding and flexible forms of policy-negotiation and -implementation, are commonly claimed to be conducive to the achievement of ecological and other forms of sustainability. More recently, however, such structures and practices of network governance have also been criticised: Opponents of neo-liberal governmentality have argued that the proliferation of informal policy networks has not only aggravated already existing problems of political inequality, but also dispersed political responsibility, obscured chains of accountability and overall cemented rather than alleviated the condition which Ulrich Beck once described as organised irresponsibility.
This paper acknowledges the proliferation of governance structures and takes on board that neo-liberal governments are redeploying them for purposes diametrically opposed to those of the emancipatory new social movements which had once pioneered them. Yet, rather than reinforcing the – undoubtedly justified – critique of neo-liberal strategies, the paper explores exactly why the latter have been so successful. It offers a meta-critique of some 'critical governance' literature and suggests that recent work on post-democracy and post-politics has often faild to recognise the peculiar character of the post-ecologist cum post-democratic condition.
