Present paper examines how a legitimacy crisis following the acquittal of two leading public servants implicated in the Christiania-affair, and the introduction of the concept of “emergency lies” into Danish public administration, can be perceived, and why both public and administrative reactions to the debacle has appeared so relatively limited subsequently. The analysis initially charts the legal foundation for acquittal, whereupon it explores contemporary evaluations of the legality of aforementioned move. Through establishing the Weberian legal-rational legitimacy as fundamental to Danish rule of law, it firstly examines how the development in the dynamics between media and politics through the last three decades has changed general expectations to political news coverage. Secondly, it examines the significance of re-legitimizing strategies to the public administrations resilience to radical change in the face of recent political and administrative scandals. In conclusion, it finds that while absence of any explicit traces of a legitimacy gap in the population may be explained by the increasing reliance on norm-scandals in contemporary media coverage, the cause of the public administrative resilience is to be found in the successful branding of recent scandals as non-systemic crises in the system, which may be remedied through conventional means.
|Educations||Administration, (Bachelor/Graduate Programme) Undergraduate or graduate|
|Publication date||9 Jan 2015|
|Supervisors||Pernille Boye Koch|