Speaker
Description
This paper analyses crises not merely as disruptions, but as discursive arenas where legitimacy is negotiated and strategically constructed. Drawing on discourse theory, sociology of knowledge, and frame analysis, legitimacy is understood as a communicative achievement grounded in symbolic power rather than legal status.
Empirically, the study compares two German debates in 2025: (1) pushbacks of Somali asylum seekers at the Polish border, and (2) the confrontation between Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Fridays for Future over climate policy. Using qualitative discourse analysis of media, political speeches, NGO statements, and court rulings, it identifies dominant interpretive frames.
In the migration case, rights-based arguments—initially upheld by the Administrative Court of Berlin—were displaced by security- and control-oriented frames. Executives and tabloids reframed constitutional violations as “asylum abuse” and “system overload”, delegitimising NGOs and sidelining legal norms. In the climate case, Merz’s utilitarian-economic rationale clashed with civil society’s moral responsibility frame, grounded in emissions history, international agreements, and scientific consensus. Here, NGOs functioned as moral authorities, anchoring legitimacy in normative and epistemic claims.
The comparison shows divergence: migration discourse is executive- and security-driven, while climate discourse is shaped by moral and scientific authority. Yet in both arenas, discursive resonance—rather than institutions—decides which interpretations prevail. Frames that align with media logics and public sentiment (fear vs. justice) most effectively stabilise legitimacy.
| Keywords | legitimacy, discursive power, discourse theory, migration, climate policy, framing |
|---|---|
| simone.schmidt@iu.org |