The critique of consensus within post-political literature has characterised the relationship between consensus and conflict as oppositional. Drawing on an in-depth re-reading of Habermasian theory of communicative action and a comparative inquiry in to the experience of planning practitioners in Amsterdam and Ankara informed by Forester’s critical pragmatism, we propose that the relationship between consensus and conflict is dynamic and mutually constitutive, rather than simply oppositional, with planners serving as expert authorities. In both cities, consensus is regarded as an alternative to authoritarian approaches in planning and as a mechanism for addressing citizens’ demands and disagreements. The findings further indicate that planners in Amsterdam actively pursue consensus-seeking, while those in Ankara encounter difficulties due to political pressure. Although there are challenges and limitations associated with this approach, the article concludes that discontinuing the use of consensus is not considered a viable option in local planning processes.
AllmendingerPHaughtonG (2012) Post-political spatial planning in England: A crisis of consensus?Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers37(1): 89–103.
2.
AudikanaA (2021) Is planning still political? The politicization of high-speed rail in Spain (1986–2016). Political Geography84: 102269.
3.
AyD (2019) Diverging community responses to state-led urban renewal in the context of recentralization of planning authority: an analysis of three urban renewal projects in Turkey. Habitat International91: 102028.
4.
BäcklundPMäntysaloR (2010) Agonism and institutional ambiguity: Ideas on democracy and the role of participation in the development of planning theory and practice – The case of Finland. Planning Theory9(4): 333–350.
5.
BeaumontJLoopmansM (2008) Towards radicalized communicative rationality: Resident involvement and urban democracy in Rotterdam and Antwerp.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research32(1): 95–113.
6.
BeaumontJNichollsW (2008) Plural governance, participation and democracy in cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research32(1): 87–94.
7.
BlaugR (1999) Democracy, Real and Ideal: Discourse Ethics and Radical Politics. Albany: State University of New York Press.
8.
BondS (2011) Negotiating a ‘democratic ethos’: Moving beyond the agonistic-communicative divide. Planning Theory10(2): 161–186.
9.
BrandRGaffikinF (2007) Collaborative planning in an uncollaborative world. Planning Theory6(3): 282–313.
10.
ChambersR (1983) Rural Development: Putting the Last First (Volume 198). London: Longman.
11.
ChambersR (1994) The origins and practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal. World Development22(7): 953–969.
12.
ChanJKHProtzenJP (2019). Between conflict and consensus: Searching for an ethical compromise in planning. Planning Theory17(2): 170-189.
13.
De VriesJ (2015) Planning and culture unfolded: The cases of Flanders and the Netherlands. European Planning Studies23(11): 2148–2164.
14.
DevosTLoopmansM (2021) Stimulating embodied intersubjectivities: two participatory experiments in Antwerp North, Belgium. CoDesign18(3): 322–339.
15.
DrèzeJSenA (2002) India: Development and Participation 2nd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
DryzekJS (2005) Deliberative democracy in divided societies: Alternatives to agonism and analgesia. Political Theory33(2): 218-242.
17.
EraydinATaşan-KokMT (2014) State response to contemporary urban movements in Turkey: A critical overview of state entrepreneurialism and authoritarian interventions. Antipode46(1): 110–129.
18.
FlyvbjergB (1998a) Empowering civil society: Habermas, Foucault and the question of conflict. In: DouglassMFriedmannJ (eds) Cities for Citizens: Planning and the Rise of Civil Society in a Global Age. New York: Wiley, 185–211.
19.
FlyvbjergB (1998b) Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. London: The University of Chicago Press.
20.
ForesterJ (1989) Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
21.
ForesterJ (1993) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
22.
ForesterJ (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
23.
ForesterJ (2012) On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism: Deliberative practice and creative negotiations. Planning Theory12(1): 5-22.
24.
FougèreLBondS (2016) Legitimizing activism in democracy: A place for antagonism in environmental governance. Planning Theory17(2): 143–169.
25.
FreireP (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
26.
FreireP (1998) Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and Civic Courage. New York: Roman and Littlefield.
27.
GloverRW (2012) Games without frontiers? Democratic engagement, agonistic pluralism and the question of exclusion. Philosophy & Social Criticism38(1): 81–104.
28.
GunderM (2003) Passionate planning for the others’ desire: An agonistic response to the dark side of planning. Progress in Planning60(3): 235-319.
29.
GunderMHillierJ (2004) Conforming to the expectations of the profession: A Lacanian perspective on planning practice, norms and values. Planning Theory and Practice5(2): 217-235.
30.
GutmannAThompsonD (1996). Democracy and Disagreement. Why Moral Conflict Cannot Be Avoided in Politics, and What Should Be Done about It. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
HabermasJ (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 1. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
32.
HabermasJ (1987) The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 2. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
33.
HabermasJ (2001) On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction: Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communicative Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
HealeyP (1992) A planners day: Knowledge & action in communicative practices. Journal of the American Planning Association58(1): 9–20.
35.
HealeyP (1996) The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design23(2): 217–234.
HealeyP (2003) Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory2(2): 101–123.
38.
HillierJ (2000) Going round the back? Complex networks and informal action in local planning processes. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space32(1): 33–54.
39.
HillierJ (2002) Shadows of Power: An Allegory of Prudence in Land-Use Planning, London: Routledge.
40.
HillierJ (2003) ‘Agon’izing over consensus: Why Habermasian ideals cannot be ‘real’. Planning Theory2(1): 37–59.
41.
HsiehHFShannonSE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research15(9): 1277-1288.
42.
HuxleyM (2000) The limits to communicative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research19(4): 369–377.
43.
InnesEIBooherDE (1999) Consensus building and complex adaptive system: A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of American Planning Association65: 412–430.
44.
InnesEIBooherDE (2015) A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing discourses. Planning Theory14(2): 195–213.
45.
InnesEI (1995) Planning theory’s emerging paradigm. Journal of Planning Education and Research14(3): 128–135.
46.
InnesJ (1996) Planning through consensus build ing: A new view of the comprehensive plan ning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association62(4): 460–472.
47.
InnesJ (2004) Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics. Planning Theory3(1):5-20.
48.
KaramanO (2014) Urban neoliberalism with Islamic characteristics. Urban Studies50(16): 3412–3427.
49.
KazaN (2006) Tyranny of the median and costly consent: A reflection on the justifications for participatory urban planning processes. Planning Theory5(3): 255–270.
50.
KruegerBBuckinghamS (2012) Towards a ‘consensual’ urban politics? creative planning, urban sustainability and regional development. International Journal of Urban and Regional Planning36(3): 486-503.
51.
KuyucuT (2014) Law, property and ambiguity in remaking Istanbul’s informal settlements. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research38(2): 609−627.
52.
KuyucuT (2022) The great failure: The roles of institutional conflict and social movements in the failure of regeneration initiatives in Istanbul. Urban Affairs Review58(1): 129-163.
53.
LaclauEMouffeC (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso Books.
54.
LeeAHYAllmendingerP. (2024) ‘Consensus’ as a Tool of Foreclosure: Hong Kong’s Land Supply Consultation. Planning Theory & Practice25(1): 9–28.
55.
LegacyC (2017) Is there a crisis of participatory planning?Planning Theory16(4): 425−442.
56.
LegacyCMetzgerJSteeleW, et al. (2019) Beyond the post-political: Exploring the relational and situated dynamics of consensus and conflict in planning. Planning Theory18(3): 273–281.
57.
InchA (2015) Ordinary citizens and the political cultures of planning: In search of the subject of a new democratic ethos. Planning Theory14(4): 404–424.
58.
KöseHDPenpecioğluM (2026) Revisiting the Historical Evolution of Central-Local Government Relations: Legacies, Transformations and Future Trajectories in Türkiye’s Urban Politics, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2026.2654949
59.
MacLeodGMcFarlaneC (2014) Introduc tion: Grammars of urban injustice. Antipode46(4): 857–873.
60.
MansbridgeJBohmanJChambersSet al. (2012) A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. In: ParkinsonJMansbridgeJ (eds) Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-26.
61.
MattilaH (2016) Can collaborative planning go beyond locally focused notions of the “public interest”? The potential of Habermas’ concept of “generalizable interest” in pluralist and trans-scalar planning discourses. Planning Theory15(4): 344-365.
62.
MäntysaloRWestinMMattilaH (2023) Public Planner – A Deliberative Authority. Planning Theory & Practice24(1): 11–29.
63.
MatillaH (2020) Habermas revisited: Resurrecting the contested roots of communicative planning theory. Progress in Planning141: 100431.
64.
McClymontK (2011) Revitalizing the political: Development control and agonism in planning practice. Planning Theory10(3): 239−256.
65.
McGuirkPM (2001) Situating communicative planning theory: Context, power, and knowledge. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space33(2): 195−217.
66.
MetzgerJ (2018) Postpolitics and planning. In GunderM.MadanipourA.WatsonV. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of planning theory (1st ed., pp. 180–193). Routledge.
67.
MooreA (2017) Critical Elitism: Deliberation, Democracy, and the Problem of Expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
68.
MouatCLegacyCMarchA (2013) The problem is the solution: Testing agonistic theory’s potential to recast intractable planning disputes. Urban Policy and Research32(2): 150–166.
69.
MouffeC (1999) Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Social Research66(3): 745-757.
70.
MouffeC (2000) Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism. Political Science Series. Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies.
71.
MouffeC (2005) On the Political (Thinking in Action). London: Routledge.
72.
OlesenK (2014) The neoliberalization of strategic spatial planning. Planning Theory13(3): 288–303.
73.
ÖzdemirEEraydinA (2017) Fragmentation in urban movements: The role of urban planning processes. International Journal of Urban and Regional Planning41(5): 727–748.
74.
Özdemir-UlutaşE (2019) The role of the expert knowledge in politicizing urban planning processes: A case from Istanbul. Planning Theory18(2): 237−259.
75.
Özdemir-UlutaşE (2021) Rationality revisited: Politicization through planning rationality against the rationality of power. Planning Theory20(4): 350–371.
76.
Özdemir-UlutaşE (2023) Kent plancısının politik rolü: Türkiye deneyiminden çıkarımlar [The political role of the urban planner: Implications from the Turkish experience]. Planlama33(2): 288–301.
77.
Özdemir-UlutaşETaşan-KokT (2019) Planners’ role in accommodating citizen disagreement: The case of Dutch urban planning. Urban Studies56(4): 741–759.
78.
PenpecioğluMTaşan-KokT (2016). Alienated and politicized? Young planners’ confrontation with entrepreneurial and authoritarian state intervention in urban development in Turkey. European Planning Studies24(6): 1037–1055.
79.
PeruzzoCMK (2020) Paulo Freire’s role and influence on the praxis of popular communication in Brazil. The International Communication Gazette82(5): 425–439.
80.
PickerillJChattertonP (2006) Notes towards autonomous geographies: creation, resistance and self-management as survival tactics. Progress in Human Geography30(6): 730-746.
81.
PickvanceC (1986) Concepts, contexts and comparison in the study of urban movements: a reply to M. Castells. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space4(2): 221–31.
82.
PløgerJ (2001) Public participation and the art of governance. Environment & Planning B: Planning & Design28(2): 219–241.
83.
PløgerJ (2004) Strife: Urban planning and agonism. Planning Theory3(1): 71–92.
84.
PløgerJ (2018) Conflict and agonism. In: GunderMMadanipourAWatsonV (eds) The Handbook of Planning Theory. London: Routledge, pp.264-275.
85.
PorterL (2011) The point is to change it. Planning Theory & Practice12(4): 477−480.
RancièreJ (1999) Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
88.
RancièreJ (2001) Ten theses on politics. Theory and Event 5.3.
89.
RancièreJ (2010) Dissensus: On Politics and Aesthetics. London: Continuum.
90.
RannilaPLoivarantaT (2015) Planning as dramaturgy: Agonistic approaches to spatial enact ment. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research39(4): 788–806.
91.
RatcliffD (2008) Qualitative data analysis and the transforming moment. Transformation: An International Journal of Holistic Mission Studies25(2-3): 116-133.
92.
RobinsonJ (2011) Cities in a world of cities: The comparative gesture. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research35(1): 1-23.
93.
SagerT (2018) Communicative planning. In: GunderMMadanipourAWatsonV (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Planning Theory. London: Routledge, 93–104.
94.
SenA (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
95.
SilverHScottAKazepovY (2010) Participation in urban contention and deliberation. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research34(3): 453–477.
96.
StraatemeierTBertoliniLBrömmelstroetteet al. (2010) An experiential approach to research in planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design37(4), 578-591.
97.
SwyngedouwE (2005) Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governance beyond-the-state. Urban Studies42(11): 1991–2006.
98.
SwyngedouwE (2009) The antinomies of the post-political city: In search of a democratic politics of environmental production. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research33(3): 601–620.
99.
Tasan-KokTKorthals AltesW (2012) Rescaling Europe: Effects of Single European Market regulations on localized networks of governance in land development. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research36(6): 1268–1287.
100.
Tasan-KokTvan den HurkMÖzogulS, et al. (2019) Changing public accountability mechanisms in the governance of Dutch urban regeneration. European Planning Studies27(6): 1107-1128.
101.
TekeliI (2001). Modernite Aşılırken Kent Planlaması. [Urban Planning as Modernity Surpasses]. Ankara: İmge Yayınevi.
102.
Tewdwr-JonesMAllmendingerP (1998) Deconstructing communicative rationality: A critique of Habermasian collaborative planning. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space30(11): 1975–1989.
103.
ÜnsalFTürkŞS (2014) Legal and institutional context of urban planning and urban renewal in Turkey: Thinking on Istanbul. In ErkutGShiraziMR (eds) Dimensions of Urban Re-development. Berlin: Berlin Technical University, pp.15-30.
104.
WilsonJSwyngedouwE (2014) Seeds of dystopia: Post-politics and the return of the political. In: WilsonJSwyngedouwE (eds) The Post Political and its Discontents: Spaces of Depoliticization, Spectres of Radical Politics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp.1–22.
105.
VerlooN (2018) Governing the global locally: Agonistic democracy practices in The Hague’s Schilderswijk. Urban Studies55: 2354–2371.
106.
YiftachelO (1998) Planning and social control: Exploring the dark side. Journal of Planning Literature12(4): 395-406.
