Experts from various disciplines are analyzing the challenges of governance and democratic legitimacy in fragmented societies at the University

Uncertainty, distrust of institutions, and growing social fragmentation pose new challenges for democratic governance. These issues were the focus of the “ colloquium : ‘Who Decides and How? Governance and Legitimacy in Fragmented Societies,’” organized by Jakiunde at the University of Navarra, which brought together experts in public ethics, criminology, political philosophy, and political analysis. meeting was attended by numerous students from theDegree in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) at the School of Humanities and Social Sciences.

The “ roundtable ” (The Future of the University), moderated by Alfonso Sánchez-Tabernero—president of the “ association ” of Friends of the University of Navarra and former President of the university—brought together Txetxu Ausín, a researcher and director at the Institute of Philosophy of the committee Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC); Gemma Varona, director of the Basque Institute of Criminology and president of the World Society of Victimology; Alfredo Cruz, professor of Political Philosophy and History of Political Thought at the University of Navarra; and Eva Silván, a political scientist specializing in political analysis and international cooperation and director of Silván & Miracle.

Drawing on their respective disciplines, the speakers reflected on the conditions that legitimize the exercise of power in pluralistic societies, as well as on the difficulties faced by today’s democracies in addressing increasingly complex problems.

Txetxu Ausín placed the “ discussion ” in a context marked by uncertainty, mistrust, and malpractice in the public sphere. researcher warned that, in the face of contemporary challenges, societies must manage situations where a lack of certainty, conflicts between values, and the need to make urgent decisions converge. In this scenario, he noted that the loss of trust in policymakers and institutions poses a problem for the functioning of democracy. He also linked this erosion to poor professional and governance practices, which can harm the public interest through improper conduct, negligence, incompetence, or failure to fulfill public duties. “Perhaps it would be more accurate to speak of a ‘society of ignorance,’” he stated, referring to the limitations of knowledge available in addressing collective problems.

researcher lso emphasized the importance of public ethics in preventing malpractice and strengthening public trust. In this regard, he stressed that “societies where public trust is strongest are the ones that are most resilient” in the face of uncertainty and complexity.

For her part, Gemma Varona addressed the issue from the perspectives of criminology, victimology, and restorative justice. Her presentation focused on how fear can influence political decisions and the construction of legitimacy, especially when certain groups are portrayed as a threat to society. The researcher noted that, in contexts of fragmentation, legitimacy is not determined solely at the ballot box or in the courts, but also by how collective fears are managed and who is identified as responsible for them.

In light of this dynamic, he defended the need to create spaces for dialogue that allow people to coexist despite their disagreements: “Legitimacy in contexts of division depends less on reaching consensus than on institutionalizing forms of dialogue with dissent that do not require scapegoats.” Varona also highlighted the usefulness of restorative justice—understood in a broad sense—as a way to address difficult conversations and foster dialogue among people with different perspectives. In his view, mature democratic governance must transform fears into precautionary measures against real risks, rather than amplifying them until they become causes of identity-based conflict.

Alfredo Cruz focused his remarks on the relationship between political legitimacy and social diversity. The professor explained that power requires legitimacy because collective decisions demand recognized authority, but also because the relationship between those who command and those who obey creates an inequality that must be justified. In this regard, he argued that legitimacy requires citizens to be able to identify with those who exercise power. To this end, he considered a shared political identity necessary to reconcile diversity and enable public deliberation.

Cruz warned that the absence of a common “ framework ” hinders dialogue and encourages political relations to devolve into a negotiation between opposing positions: “When that common ground—that sensus communis—is lacking, what we have is not deliberation, but negotiation.” The professor also defended the role of the Constitution in a constitutional democracy, noting that it establishes the shared principles that make the democratic process possible.

In her remarks, Eva Silván analyzed the changes liberal democracies are undergoing and the ability of their institutions to respond to globalized, interdependent, and increasingly fragmented societies. The political scientist noted that traditional procedures of representation, including voting, must be examined in light of social and technological transformations. She also highlighted the crisis of trust and representativeness facing political parties and traditional media, as well as the growing influence of social media and new digital channels in the training of public opinion.

Silván questioned whether current participatory mechanisms are sufficient to address contemporary challenges and raised the need to explore forms of democracy that are closer to citizens. “I believe we should start talking more about ‘democracies of proximity,’” she said, referring to the possibility of finding forms of legitimate representation and care within these contexts. The political scientist also warned of the gap between the magnitude of collective problems and the institutions’ capacity to respond. In her view, this gap fuels mistrust and fear, which is why she considered it necessary to “regenerate public life and public service as much as possible” to address the challenges facing today’s societies.