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.
Özdemir et al. (Thu,) studied this question.