From a hard nuclear state towards a soft nuclear repository state – participation, co-designing, learning and reversibility in the site selection process for a nuclear waste repository

Since 2013 the site search for a repository for highly radioactive waste has been taking place in Germany within the framework of a new governance architecture and under new political guidelines. Based on experiences with nuclear politics in the past, Jungk (1977) coined the term hard nuclear state, characterized by decisions made in a top-down manner. The Decide-Announce-Defend (DAD) strategy, which branded the nuclear state at that time, led to conflicts, mistrust of authorities and blockages. In particular, massive resistance developed against the planned final repository site at Gorleben. Nowadays, after more than 60 years deploying nuclear energy, the (energy) political balance of power has fundamentally changed. Parts of the anti-nuclear movement have been integrated into the political party system and have contributed significantly to the nuclear phase-out. In the course of this, the unfinished task of final disposal has been readdressed: with the Repository Site Selection Act (StandAG, 2017), which was passed in 2013 and amended in 2017, an ongoing process of public participation is stated. The site selection process is required to be learning, self-questioning, science-based, reversible, and participatory. The StandAG § 5 not only provides a basis for a fundamental dialogue between the regulator, the operator, and the public, but also for „co-design“ by common citizens. The StandAG considers various elements from different participation-friendly theories of democracy as well as specific governance concepts, which we refer to collectively as the soft nuclear repository state (cf. Brunnengräber, 2021). Its characteristics need to be worked out, as the StandAG only provides some indications, but no criteria, for what good and sufficient participation in the site selection process means and what its conditions for success should be. Based on preliminary considerations on democratic theory and governance aspects (part 1), we present what good participation could mean in the current procedure and what the framework conditions for good participation could be (part 2). Additionally, we present main findings from participatory observations from the ongoing site search process and identify conditions and indications of a successful future participation process based on the ongoing process (part 3). In the résumé, we turn to the question of which of the democracy-theoretical elements of the soft repository state are already recognizable in the present procedure, but also whether the current procedure provides additional indications towards the soft nuclear repository state (part 4).

THE STATE OF CULTURAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE NATION-BUILDING IN MODERN KAZAKHSTAN

The article examines nation-building in Kazakhstan from the point of view of the relationship between its homogeneous and heterogeneous cultural foundations. The article shows that the cultural and linguistic heterogeneity of the entire multiethnic society in Kazakhstan is inextricably linked with the Kazakh-Russian heterogeneity of the titular nation. The consequence of the heterogeneity of the titular nation is the three-element social structure of society in Kazakhstan: 1) Kazakh-speaking Kazakhs, 2) Russian-speaking Kazakhs, and 3) Russians and other nationalities. Due to the linguistic heterogeneity of the Kazakhs as the nuclear state-forming nation, such a transition is seriously hampered today in the nation-building in Kazakhstan. The results of the opinion poll demonstrate a different level of support for heterogeneity among different ethnocultural groups. The tendency to support cultural titular homogeneity among Kazakhs is significantly higher than among other ethnocultural groups.

An Unlikely Powerhouse

Chapter 8 hones in on political explosions around the village of Idinthakarai that, from 2011, became the nucleus of the anti-nuclear movement in south India. Living only about a kilometre from the plant, village lives, livelihoods, and environments were irrevocably marred by the prospect of radiation burdens. We consider peoples’ role in jettisoning the People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy as a force to be reckoned with that reached national and transnational circuits. As they waged non-violence from this village, on the one hand, a ‘university without walls’ was created, and on the other, an ‘open-air jail’ for many of the inhabitants who could not venture out for fear of arrest. Through their fast-track learning at the blunt end of nuclear politics, women rose to the challenge as ‘organic intellectuals’. Despite patriarchal convention, they became expert analysts and spokespersons on several subjects that enabled them to pierce the smokescreens of the nuclear state.

The Plot Thickens

Chapter 6 concentrates on a ‘secret’ public hearing that was held on 6 October 2006 with the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited in order to swiftly pass the construction of four more reactors at the plant with as little publicity as possible. It provides an exemplary occasion with which to consider the clash of epistemologies between the nuclear state and local residents. For the authorities, the public hearing was no more than a matter of paper protocol. For members of the public, the occasion was loaded with expectations of genuine consultation, justice, and recompense as a matter of an overdue and urgent entitlement—it being the first ever public hearing on the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant. After a look at the sovereignty of the nuclear state through its reliance on science and law, the author casts a lens on the preparations, processes and the aftermath of the public hearing, noting some of the direct, creative, and nuanced challenges to the nuclear state.