Democracy | Vienna on the brink of a heat wave: "We only have a few years left"

Mr. Czernohorszky, for you, Vienna is a city of co-determination. How do you determine that?

Vienna sees itself as a city that wants to enable a good life for everyone, not just those with the necessary financial means or who live in a particular district. What also sets Vienna apart from other cities is the fact that, for over 100 years, social housing has made Vienna a city where people can afford to live. The climate crisis demands that we do many things differently if we want to safeguard the quality of life for the next 20, 30, or 50 years. We can only organize the necessary transformation together with our citizens. To do this, we must ask the self-critical question: "Are we succeeding in involving everyone, or are our participation offers simply contributing to a two-thirds democracy, where some participate and some don't?"

In an attempt to address the challenge of democratic participation, Vienna is relying on the structure of the Climate Team. What is the significance of the Climate Team and how does it work?

In participatory processes, frustration often begins when it comes to implementation. This takes a long time and is often different from what some people might have imagined. Vienna has indeed developed significantly as a deliberative democracy. At the same time, however, we had to recognize that in these participatory formats, only those on the more privileged side of society have a say. We want to change both of these things with the climate teams. Climate teams meet annually in three of Vienna's districts, each one covering the entire district, in communities, clubs, schools, kindergartens, churches, mosques, and parks. First, ideas in the areas of climate protection, climate adaptation, and the circular economy are articulated, and supporters are found. In the second phase, the ideas are then developed into concrete projects in a co-creative process with citizens and city experts – with political responsibilities, administrative responsibilities, and a budget. A representative jury of citizens then decides which projects should be implemented with the budget. The budget is €20 per district resident. The jury is drawn based on socio-demographic criteria and is, in a sense, a mini-district. At the end of the process, no further political decisions are made; this decision has already been made with the launch of the climate team process. And then the concrete implementation takes place within two years.

What is your favorite project from the last three years?

One project is the organization of a pedibus and bicibus – the organized accompaniment of children on foot or by bike on their way to school. The other is the complete transformation of a neighborhood (Grätzl, ed. note) by reducing motorized traffic and creating more green space, trees, and room for cyclists and pedestrians. The former costs a few thousand euros, the latter over a million.

What role can the participation format of climate teams play in Vienna's climate strategy?

The climate strategy, known in Vienna as the "Climate Roadmap," encompasses the entire path to climate neutrality by 2040 at all levels, with concrete measures and levers, with interim targets and assigned _CO2 budgets. I believe that good governance is crucial, especially in a very difficult phase for democracies. Planned programs must actually be implemented. The implementing actors must show their cards. Of course, climate policy always needs bold, clear goals, even if they don't fit the populist agenda. But it won't work without grassroots participation. This combination of a comprehensible strategy and commitment, with the participation of people along the way, is crucial. In this respect, participation, and thus the climate teams, are a central guideline of our climate roadmap.

You say that participation formats in the climate and environment department can help counteract the authoritarian shift. The City of Vienna has placed the area of democracy under the climate department. Across the country, however, climate is one of the least popular topics. In the spirit of popular sovereignty, one should have said, we'll take the economy, we'll take internal or external security, to involve citizens.

I would say yes and no. No in the sense that participation fits well with the topic of the environment and climate, because environmental policy and climate policy are of course very closely linked to the question of how high the quality of life is in a city. The real-life transformation of cities has direct significance for people who may not be thinking about climate policy in the meta-discourse, but who are very concerned about whether it is cool enough in their own four walls to be able to sleep through the night after eight or nine days of heat , especially if they can't afford an apartment with air conditioning and a balcony. Yes, in the sense of your question, it would be a problem if the participatory approach were only applied to climate policy. But that is not what is meant in Vienna. Vienna is precisely the democratic capital of Europe. Our struggle also extends, for example, to changing Austria's reactionary citizenship law so that access to passports is made easier. The goal is participatory projects in all policy areas. You are absolutely right: if a democracy or a city does not find answers in other areas with regard to citizen engagement, it would be contributing to the crisis rather than solving it.

Society is polarized between big cities and rural regions. Vienna is the capital . For example, in your hometown, Eisenstadt on the Hungarian border, which has a population of 16,000, the ÖVP governs with over 50 percent of the seats. How can a metropolis not always be a counterpoint, but also contribute to reversing this polarization?

Around the world, urban areas have developed differently than rural areas. Cities are the ideal place to initiate a new, positive, and hopeful democratic development. We only have a few years left to develop a new, tangible narrative of democracy, because if that fails, democratic structures will formally remain but will be gutted. In my opinion, this is easier in cities because they are places where people from very different backgrounds come together. This isn't a fantasy; people sit across from you on the subway or live on the same stairs. In rural areas, we see that where the FPÖ has suffered a significant decline, the presence of traditional parties or party-affiliated civil society organizations in volunteer work has also completely eroded. In Austria, this would typically be the village fire department, brass bands, and various associations. Political actors can also be found in these associations. And there has been a real disruption. Firstly, in the total decline of this volunteer work in structurally weak regions. And places have disappeared where people could meet and exchange ideas, even though they have different political approaches and different life realities. But a democracy doesn't defend itself. It's not an order that exists, but rather a process that is being created, and in this respect, it's the task of city dwellers to make this a central theme or perhaps to become the starting point for a democracy movement.

Which parts of Berlin are you looking at, and where is Vienna a pioneer?

I can learn an incredible amount from Berlin because, due to the size and independence of its districts, it has so many different approaches to solving problems. There's a greater sense of originality and less of a top-down strategy. Vienna is more easily understood as the Viennese way—there aren't as many differences as in Berlin. We're prepared to make far-sighted decisions and then implement them over decades. The central characteristic here is how Vienna can be a city for everyone—that's the direct thread running from Red Vienna in the 1920s to the present day.