Beyond consensus

The proposed petroleum developments in the Lofoten, Vesterålen, and Senja are a controversial issue in Norway. We ask how insights into legitimacy and risk perception can help to illuminate the disputed policy process for petroleum developments in Lofoten, Vesterålen, and Senja. Our Q-methodology elicits three key narratives that steer the policy process: (i) best practice and knowledge does not permit coexistence, and fishing takes priority; (ii) coexistence is possible with good process where the nation-state manages risk; and (iii) the state and industry cannot facilitate coexistence, science and conservation come first. We argue these narratives reflect divergence in worldview in three key ways: (i) differential perspectives on the priority of local, national, and global scales; (ii) emphasis on the role of knowledge, skill, and rectitude in finding best policy; and (iii) differential concern for fish, the nation-state, and conservation. We argue for a more realistic approach to coexistence in deliberative democracy that does not aim for consensus and win-win outcomes, and assert that disagreement and partial victories and losses is a natural and healthy state of affairs in a democracy.