Stellen wir jetzt zum Thema „Hybride Krisen und Open Governance“ Annahmen:
Krisen sind seit Beginn der Aufklärung und des technischen Fortschritts nicht mehr gottgegeben, sondern sie werden als durch den Menschen beeinflussbar begriffen.
Krisen sind nicht solitär – ein Unglück kommt selten allein –, sondern sie sind vielmehr ein interdependenter Kanon an Zustandsänderungen und Erfordernissen von Entscheidungen und Strategien. Damit ist das eigentlich Teil des Lernens.

Krisen sind fraktale Gebilde aus inneren und äußeren Unbekannten und Variablen, die sich in immer mehr Detailtiefe aufklappen. Je komplexer das ist, desto krisenhafter ist das Empfinden. Das gilt ebenso für die Krisenvorsorge, was die Gefahr eines moralisierten Prudentialismus – das ist quasi eine starke kulturelle Risikoaversion – birgt. Die Vorbeugung kann man natürlich genauso detailverliebt betreiben, wobei die Frage ist, inwiefern so etwas in gewisser Weise alltagstauglich und letztendlich mental gesund ist.
Es gibt Krisen des Individuums und des Kollektivs sowie dessen Individuen. Das kann sich unterschiedlich stark beeinflussen und eine unterschiedliche Betroffenheit mit sich bringen. Krisen sind daher einer der Gründe zur Bildung von Gemeinschaften in pluralistischen Gesellschaften und deswegen auch in vielfältiger, hybrider Gestalt.

Welche Erfordernisse kann man darin sehen?
Krisen erfordern eine Festigkeit, wenn wir von einer krisenfesten Gesellschaft sprechen, die zwischen belastbarer Grundfestigkeit und einer anpassungsfähigen Elastizität der Systeme sowie deren einzelnen Aktoren funktioniert. Je besser die Systembasis, das Gemeinwesen, die Infrastruktur und die Prozesse in Schuss sind, desto besser und flexibler kann die Umsetzung von Krisenreaktionen auf verlässliche Funktionen gründen.

Die fraktale und vielfältige Gestalt von Krisen erfordert eine innere Führung – das ist ein Begriff aus dem Militär, der auch bei der Bundeswehr wieder stärker zum Tragen kommt – auf einem intelligenten Weg zwischen einem einvernehmlichem Handlungsrahmen und individuellen Ermessensräumen – das heißt, der Elastizität – entlang einvernehmlicher Ziele und Linien.
Beim heutigen mentalen Freiheitsgrad kann das nur auf einer breiten gemeinschaftlichen und offenen Informations- und Evidenzgrundlage in einer offenen Selbststeuerungsmentalität – Open Governance/Selbstwirksamkeit – und unter Einsatz von IKT für eine Analyse, Kommunikation und Aushandlung in gebotenen Zeithorizonten, im Vertrauen und bei einem geringen Schaden am Zusammenhalt gelingen.

Wie stellt man das her oder verbessert das? Damit komme ich zu den Vertrauensmechanismen und zu Multilevel Governance sowie den damit verbundenen Erfordernissen.

Zur Sicherung der Grundstärke bei Gemeinwesen, Infrastrukturen und Prozessen vor und in der Lage braucht es einer belastbaren und kompetenten Zivilgesellschaft, um Selbstwirksamkeit ausüben und organisieren zu können sowie am kollektiven Lernen teilzuhaben, aber auch, um die Sicherstellung der Grundstärke gemeinsam mit den Institutionen zu evaluieren. Das bedeutet messen, anpassen, Kontrolle und lernen.

Darüber hinaus bedeutet es die Stärkung der vierten Gewalt – wir haben unsere drei Gewalten, nämlich die Legislative, Exekutive und Judikative –, wenn wir den Journalismus sowie die Fragen – was ist eigentlich noch alles Journalismus? Was trägt in dieser Außenbetrachtung dazu bei? Wie viel davon ist Zivilgesellschaft, wie viel davon sind soziale Medien usw.? – einmal als Organ, das in die Zusammenarbeit mit den anderen drei Gewalten tritt, als die vierte Gewalt nehmen.

Bei den anstehenden Herausforderungen ist es erforderlich, dass die bisherigen Instrumente für Verbindlichkeit und Rechenschaft der staatlichen Institutionen und somit die Instrumente für Vertrauen durch präzisere, rechtzeitigere und globalere Mechanismen des Berichtswesens – hier ist es wichtig, das Wort „globalere“ hervorzuheben – mit der Unterstützung der Zivilgesellschaft und der Technologien der Informationsverarbeitung ergänzt werden.

Ich spreche davon, dass wir ein öffentliches Monitoring betreiben und ausbauen können, sowie davon, dass es Watch Dogs – das ist ein hartes Wort, aber im Grunde erfüllt das eine Funktion, die nicht unsympathisch ist – und Journalismus gibt. Das von Nichtregierungsorganisationen und von Social Entrepreneurs untermauert zu stärken und durch eine stärkere Multilevel Governance zu flankieren, ist nicht nur in unserem starken Föderalismus, sondern auch in anderen Verfassungen oder Nationen eine Herausforderung.

Wie kann man das erreichen?
Es bauen sich zunehmend Möglichkeiten auf, das zu messen. Wenn man von den Bedingungen, von den Grundlagen her kommt, ist eine Grundlage eine evidenzinformierte Entscheidung und die Verbesserung des Lernens, die Bereitstellung und die Nachnutzung von Daten sowie generell eine bessere Bereitstellung von Informationen, um diese dann auf eine gemeinsame Informationsgrundlage zu gründen. Die USA haben diesbezüglich 2019 den sehr interessanten Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act verabschiedet. Die Franzosen machen das über ein anderes Gesetz, das „Loi pour une République numérique“.
Des Weiteren gibt es ein Assessment von Bloomberg dazu. Zudem existiert seit Neuestem das Global Data Barometer, im Rahmen dessen darauf geschaut wird, welche Nationen welche Daten zur Verfügung stellen.

Als Grundlage für eine Open Governance, ein Open Government, ein Open Parliament und ein Open Justice – das ist das, wo ich auch selbst stark involviert bin – gibt es den Independent Reporting Mechanism der Open Government Partnership. Dabei handelt es sich um das unabhängige Berichtswesen eines globalen Netzwerks, dem mittlerweile 78 Nationen angehören, das zunehmend auf die subnationale Ebene geht – Deutschland nimmt seit 2016 daran teil – und das sich praktisch durch eine Selbstverpflichtung in Aktionsplänen in ein messbares Berichtswesen begibt. Im Moment arbeiten wir daran, wie sich dieses Berichtswesen auf die kommunale Ebene ausdehnen lässt. In diesem Zusammenhang gibt es bereits unterschiedliche Aktivitäten und teilweise eine Forschung in Spanien, hier und auf den Philippinen.

Im Hinblick auf die generelle Innovationsfähigkeit im öffentlichen Sektor ist das Observatory of Public Sector Innovation der OECD sehr aktiv, das greifbar, messbar zu machen. Darüber hinaus sind die Dänen hier mit einem Innovationsbarometer stark, das wir jetzt zunehmend auf deutsche Bedarfe bzw. Feinheiten anpassen.

Des Weiteren haben wir das Thema Nachhaltigkeit. Ganz bekannt sind die Nachhaltigkeitsziele der Vereinten Nationen, die zunehmend einen Rahmen der Governance, der Steuerung und der Selbststeuerung darstellen. Nachdem die UN SDG quasi konstitutionell wurden, hat es eine Zeit gedauert, bis die Forschung diese in belastbare Indikatoren verwandelt hat, die jetzt jedoch immer mehr werden.

Noch offen, aber ebenfalls sehr interessant ist, wie das ebenenübergreifende Zusammenspiel, die Multilevel Readiness, besser gelingt. Wie kann man auch das in gewisser Weise in selbstverpflichtende Mechanismen bekommen, um dort eine Accountability, eine Verbindlichkeit herzustellen?

Herr OB Kurz von der Stadt Mannheim ist sehr stark involviert, wenn es darum geht, das Thema „Urban-20-Städte“ überhaupt aufzumachen. Das sind die Städte, die im Rahmen der G20 gerade ihr Mitspracherecht politisch einfordern. Parallel dazu ist das Ganze jetzt auch zu einer U7-Bewegung geworden, und Herr OB Peter Kurz ist für die U7, für die urbane Ebene, Sonderberichterstatter. Insgesamt sind das natürlich Ziele dieses Netzwerks, aber auch des Parliament of Mayors, dem er vorsitzt. Insofern ist es auch in dieser Hinsicht interessant, was hier passiert und wie das in Zukunft aussieht.

Denn in Gesprächen mit anderen Nationen, wie z. B. kürzlich mit dem Ministerium für die lokale Ebene in Malaysia, kristallisiert sich überall das Problem heraus, dass es auf lokaler Ebene zwar Aktivitäten gibt, die global eine Wirksamkeit entfalten können, aber bei denen es Schwierigkeiten im Zusammenspiel mit der nationalen Ebene oder mit der Bundesebene gibt.

Ganz bekannt ist natürlich die Fragestellung der Lieferketten. Das Lieferkettengesetz ist jetzt in Verabschiedung, und ich frage diesbezüglich immer, wo sich darin der Datenkettenpassus befindet. Lieferketten sind natürlich irgendwo Lieferketten und lassen sich ganz gut abbilden. In der Hinsicht gibt es auch die interessante Initiative EITI – Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative –, die weltweit misst, wie viele Rohstoffe eine Nation der anderen Nation aus der Erde holt.
Dann haben wir das Thema „Better Life/Well-being“. Die OECD arbeitet diesbezüglich stark daran, ein Well-being zur Lebensqualität und zu den Lebensbedingungen aufzubauen, denn das ist das Endziel, das erreicht werden will.

Das Ganze wird durch eine starke Zivilgesellschaft flankiert und über Nichtregierungsorganisationen, Philanthropie und Social Entrepreneurs finanziert. Diese betreiben ein Public Oversight und unterstützen die Parlamentarier also praktisch in ihrer Aufsichtsfunktion mit ihrer Expertise und mit ihren Fachkenntnissen gerade im analytischen Bereich. Das ist eigentlich das, was es braucht, damit es in multiplen Krisenzeiten nicht zu fahrig wird.

Es wurde vor der Mittagspause bereits benannt: Um Krisen gut zusammen sowie mit Selbstverantwortung und innerer Führung zu meistern, müssen die Akteurinnen und Akteure auf dieselben guten Bedingungen zurückgreifen können. Dafür braucht es noch einmal besserer Möglichkeiten, um für das Ganze überprüfbare Rahmenbedingungen zu schaffen.
Damit schließe ich meinen Vortrag.

Dear colleagues, dear Chair, dear audience! I am from Politics for Tomorrow and from the Open Government Network

Germany. You can already hear that it is mainly about Open Government and the question of

and the question of what it has to do with crisis and how it can help in crises.

crises.

Today we are talking about definitions. That is not an easy task, and the question is:

Is it even possible to solve this conclusively?

What do you do? Nowadays, you look it up on Wikipedia and see that the word

"crisis" is an old word from the Greek. Then we look at the data. On this slide you see a chart from the Google Books Ngram Viewer. Ultimately, this is

a German body of text primarily from the Bavarian State Library. If you

look up the status of the word "crisis", you can see that it really only became more widespread with the modern age, whereas the word "state" is a

really state- and long-lasting word. The word "war", on the other hand, began to rise strongly in the

17th century; perhaps before that it was battles, plagues and epidemics.

epidemics.

But we are now mainly concerned with the term "crisis", and

it is interesting that this word, although it is so old, only began to rise in modern times.

modern age.

What else does one do? We look at what the search behaviour of people in Germany in particular is like on this subject.

Germany on this subject. You can see quite well how people search for the word.

word, and it is also obvious that with the beginning of the corona pandemic and again between

again between 20 and 26 February - one can assume that it is about the

the conflict between Russia and Ukraine - there are strong searches or real peaks.

or real peaks. It is also interesting to note that the word "crisis" has been the most

the last five years, the word "crisis" is searched for most in Berlin and Baden-Württemberg.

If you compare this with the search word "inflation", you can see that "inflation" tends to creep into the

creeps into people's interest. The crisis, on the other hand, remains as a peak. If

When it comes to a comparison of the search terms "inflation" and "crisis", it is the

Saxony and Thuringia search for the term "crisis" more often than "inflation".

search.

Then we shortened the time period to roughly the beginning of the pandemic in order to

to see if there were any distortions. In the search queries for "crisis", Berlin and

Berlin and Baden-Württemberg were still in the lead. When comparing the terms "inflation

and "crisis", on the other hand, it can be seen that Thuringia and Saarland searched for these terms the most during the corresponding period. We then

a general look at the search query "inflation" and found that the people in

that the people in Saxony-Anhalt are the ones who, measured against the respective search behaviour from the geography there, use the word in the search query the least.

If we look at what other crises there are:

During the financial crisis, of course, there was also a peak. Everyone knows the time back then.

Then we have the chip crisis, which clearly exists. There is a peak in October 2021.

However, it can also be seen that the search queries for the chip

crisis, which were mainly in Baden-Württemberg and Hesse, always drop quickly.

decline.

Furthermore, we have the energy crisis, which looks a bit like a perennial issue.

Over the 2010s, this was a topic that was searched for rather less than before.

searched for. In October it picked up again in parallel with the 2021 chip crisis.

Then it went down again, and then it peaked again.

We also have the oil crisis, which, apart from a few outliers in between,

it seems to be a complete perennial.

We also have the economic crisis. This term, just like the financial crisis at the time, was strongly recalled in 2007, 2008 and 2009 and now at the beginning of the pandemic, so that there are strong peaks here in each case.

Then, not to forget, we have the climate crisis. Here you can see that

there was obviously a constant "more-or-less interest" at the beginning of the 2010s.

After that, calm has returned to a certain extent. It became more dramatic in the search queries again in the period, I would say, 2017, 2018 - probably an IPCC report was

probably an IPCC report was published at that time - and now it has also peaked again.

This slide shows the search behaviour for the term "corona crisis" in a shortened period of time.

in a shortened period of time, just to see if it really existed.

The corona crisis did exist. In terms of search queries, there is a very strong peak here.

in terms of search queries. Interestingly, however, at least with regard to the word

"Corona crisis", it became very quiet. Probably people simply searched for more detailed words.

Now let's take a look at the EU indicator for economic resilience, either descriptively or as an observation, because it is difficult to define: It can

correlation, but there is definitely a connection with the quality of public administration.

with the quality of public administration. From the EU Quality Index for Administration

from 2017 and the EU Economic Resilience Indicator from

2018 show that there seems to be a link between the quality of public administration and economic

economic resilience.

The Ipsos report on populism from 2019 is also interesting, according to which

Germany stands fairly well on the question: "How much do you think expertism in

understand in your country?" is reasonably solid. However, the opinion in Germany has

doubled compared to 2016, the opinion that people are not understood by experts.

understood by the experts. In comparison to other countries, this opinion has also increased

also increased more strongly.

I would like to summarise:

The word "crisis" is found almost only in modern literature, although it is an ancient word.

ancient word. Is this caused by a growing awareness of crisis or is there a "less fateful", "less fateful" attitude behind it?

"less fateful", i.e. God-given? To what extent has it perhaps simply changed, if one now sees it in an overall historical context?

As far as the search query characteristics are concerned, there are the characteristics "with and without background noise", but actually always with strong peaks. In addition, crises are

are obviously proclaimed, and in this context it is a question of who proclaims them.

We have seen the regional and small-scale differences in interest in crises. The reasons for this are the different degrees to which people are affected, a different

strength - we are talking about a crisis-proof society - and a different culture, e.g. in terms of self

culture, e.g. in terms of self-responsibility and more serenity, or a different relationship to the risk of loss and fear of loss. Obviously, however, there are differences that would have to be found out if one were to deal with a heterogeneous entity such as a

a federal state, a nation or even beyond.

The quality of public administration is largely uncorrelated with economic resilience.

resilience.

The population still feels understood by its experts at a relatively high level.

understood by their experts. However, this has doubled in Germany between 2016 and 2019.

double from 2016 to 2019.

Let us now make assumptions on the topic of "hybrid crises and open governance":

Since the beginning of the Enlightenment and technological progress, crises have no longer been

Since the beginning of the Enlightenment and technological progress, crises are no longer God-given, but can be influenced by human beings.

Crises are not solitary - one disaster seldom comes alone - but they are rather

an interdependent canon of changes of state and requirements for decisions and strategies. This is actually part of learning.

Crises are fractal entities made up of internal and external unknowns and variables, which

unfold into more and more detail. The more complex this is, the more crisis-like the

the sensation. This also applies to crisis prevention, which carries the danger of moralised prudentialism - which is quasi a strong cultural risk aversion. The

Prevention can, of course, be pursued with just as much attention to detail, although the question is,

the question is to what extent such a thing is in some way suitable for everyday life and ultimately mentally healthy.

There are crises of the individual and the collective and its individuals. This can

affect each other in different ways and bring with them different levels of concern.

bring about. Crises are therefore one of the reasons for the formation of communities in pluralistic societies and therefore also in diverse, hybrid forms.

What requirements can we see in this? Crises require a firmness if we

speak of a crisis-proof society, which can be distinguished between resilient basic strength

and an adaptable elasticity of the systems and their individual actors.

function. The better the system base, the community, the infrastructure and the processes are in good shape, the better and more flexible the implementation of crisis responses can be based on reliable functions.

The fractal and multifaceted nature of crises requires an inner leadership - this is a term from the military that is also used in crisis management.

from the military, which is also being applied more strongly in the Bundeswehr.

on an intelligent path between a consensual framework for action and individual discretion - that is, elasticity - along consensual goals and lines.

With today's mental degree of freedom, this can only be achieved on a broad collaborative and open information and evidence base in an open self-direction mentality - open governance/self-efficacy - and using ICTs to

and using ICTs for analysis, communication and negotiation in appropriate time horizons, in trust and with little damage to cohesion.

How do you establish or improve that? This brings me to the mechanisms of trust and multilevel governance and the associated requirements.

To ensure the basic strength of communities, infrastructures and processes before and

and in place, there is a need for a resilient and competent civil society in order to

to be able to exercise and organise self-efficacy and to participate in collective learning.

but also to evaluate the assurance of basic strength together with the institutions. This means measuring, adapting, monitoring and learning.

Furthermore, it means strengthening the fourth power - we have our three

we have our three powers, namely the legislative, executive and judiciary - if we take journalism and the questions - what is journalism anymore? What contributes in this

outside view to it? How much of it is civil society, how much of it is

social media, etc.? - once as a body that enters into cooperation with the other

three powers, as the fourth power.

With the challenges ahead, it is necessary that the previous instruments for bindingness and accountability of state institutions and thus

the instruments for trust by more precise, timely and global mechanisms of reporting - here it is important to emphasise the word "more global" - with

the support of civil society and information processing technologies.

I am talking about the fact that we can operate and develop public monitoring, as well as the fact that there are watch dogs - that's a harsh word, but basically it fulfils

a function that is not unsympathetic - and journalism. Strengthening that underpinned by non-governmental organisations and by social entrepreneurs and

flanked by stronger multilevel governance, is a challenge not only in our strong federalism but also in other constitutions or nations.

How can this be achieved? Increasingly, ways are building up to

measure this. If you come from the conditions, from the fundamentals, one is an

foundation is evidence-informed decision-making and improving learning,

the provision and the re-use of data and generally better provision of information and then basing it on a shared

foundation. In this regard, the US in 2019 passed the very interesting Foundations for

Evidence-Based Policymaking Act. The French are doing this through another

another law, the "Loi pour une République numérique". There is also an

assessment by Bloomberg. In addition, there is the Global Data Barometer, which looks at which nations provide which data.

which data.

As a basis for Open Governance, Open Government, Open Parliament and Open Justice

and an Open Justice - that is where I am also heavily involved myself - there is the

Independent Reporting Mechanism of the Open Government Partnership. This is

of a global network, which now includes 78 nations, that is increasingly based on

78 nations, which is increasingly going to the sub-national level - Germany has been a member since 2016 - and which, in practice, is being transformed into a measurable system through a self-commitment in action plans.

in action plans into a measurable reporting system. At the moment, we are working on how this reporting can be extended to the municipal level. In this context, there are already different activities and some research in Spain, here and in the Philippines.

With regard to the general innovation capacity in the public sector, the OECD's Observatory of Public Sector Innovation is very active in making this tangible, measurable. Furthermore, the Danes are strong here with an innovation barometer that we are now increasingly

which we are now increasingly adapting to German needs and refinements.

Furthermore, we have the topic of sustainability. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are well known and increasingly provide a framework for governance, steering and self-management.

governance and self-governance. After the UN SDGs became quasi-constitutional, it took a while for research to turn them into resilient indicators, but they are now becoming more and more so.

Still open, but also very interesting, is how to better achieve cross-level interaction, multilevel readiness. How can this also be

mechanisms in order to create accountability and commitment?

to establish accountability and commitment?

Mr. Kurz, the mayor of the city of Mannheim, is very much involved when it comes to this,

the topic of "Urban-20-Cities". These are the cities that have just

cities that are politically demanding their right to a say within the framework of the G20. Parallel to this, the

has now also become a U7 movement, and Mayor Peter Kurz is in favour of the U7.

U7, for the urban level. All in all, these are of course the goals

of this network, but also of the Parliament of Mayors, which he chairs. In this respect, it is also interesting to see what is happening here and what it will look like in the future.

Because in discussions with other nations, such as recently with the Ministry of

the local level in Malaysia, the problem crystallises everywhere that while there are activities

that can have a global impact, but that there are difficulties in interacting with the local level.

but where there are difficulties in interacting with the national or federal level.

federal level.

The issue of supply chains is of course well known.

The Supply Chain Act is now being passed, and I always ask in this regard,

where is the data chain passage in it? Supply chains are of course supply chains somewhere and can be mapped quite well. In this respect, there is also the interesting initiative EITI - Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative - which measures worldwide how many raw materials one nation extracts from another nation.

how many raw materials one nation extracts from the earth for another nation.

Then we have the issue of "Better Life/Well-being". The OECD is working hard on this

strongly on building a Well-being on quality of life and living conditions, because that is the ultimate goal that wants to be achieved.

The whole thing is flanked by a strong civil society and funded through non-governmental organisations, philanthropy and social entrepreneurs. These operate a

Public Oversight and thus practically support the parliamentarians in their oversight role with their expertise and with their expertise especially in the analytical area. This is actually what is needed so that in times of multiple crises it does not become too

times of crisis.

It was already mentioned before the lunch break: To manage crises well together and with

and with self-responsibility and inner leadership, the actors must have access to the same good conditions.

actors must be able to fall back on the same good conditions. This requires even

better possibilities to create a verifiable framework for the whole.

for the whole.

With this I will conclude my lecture.