Introduction
The increasingly frequent use of crisis management to govern situations marked by uncertainty and complexity often leads to the centralization of decision-making, sometimes accompanied by a reduction in civil liberties and a weakening of the rule of law. However, there is no evidence to suggest that these strategies are more effective: in other words, that a centralized regime manages crises better than a decentralized system; that an authoritarian regime performs better than a democracy, or vice versa; that a single decision-maker enables fairer measures to be taken; or that an emergency necessarily justifies a temporary suspension of democratic institutions or citizenship to contain a threat.
This conference will analyze the dangers posed by the use of crisis management as a routine mode of governance, at a time when the rise of populism and the emergence of illiberal governments are promoting centralized and authoritarian forms of power, presented as the only ones capable of governing in a world described as unstable, threatening, and uncertain. It will explore whether a democratic state, with its principles, values, and institutions, can manage crises—in other words, whether it is possible to manage a crisis democratically—or whether, on the contrary, crises necessarily call for responses that deviate from these principles, values, and institutions to enable the state to govern amid uncertainty.