The Significance of Resilience in Democratic Social Contracts

Written by Johannes Jauhiainen, based on The CO3 Framework.

In an age of multiple, overlapping and interconnected crises, from climate change to democratic backsliding, societies in Europe are increasingly looking for ways to simultaneously  build up democratic resilience from within and also protect themselves from external threats. 

A premise of CO3 is that a holistic way to protect a community or even a supranational polity such as the EU from threats associated with ongoing crises is to avoid clinging to rigid social contracts. Instead, it is to promote social contracts that can adapt, recover, and transform during — and through — those crises.

Yet adaptation and recovery alone are not enough. Instead, an essential question becomes how communities do so while simultaneously upholding shared democratic principles such as fairness, inclusion, and participation. An important part of the theoretical work done in the project has focused on the concept of resilience, and its importance to contemporary social contracts.

This may sound abstract but there are many practical and successful communities who have managed to do so.

For example, in countries such as Romania and Hungary, both of which are subjects of research in CO3 or countries like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, the post-Soviet transition represented a profound reconfiguration of social contracts following the collapse of rigid, state-centered governance. This transition meant that both, in different contexts, were compelled to renegotiate the foundations of legitimacy, welfare, and participation. These transitions illustrate both the potential and the vulnerability of societies seeking to rebuild stability through adaptation, recovery, and transformation after systemic upheaval.

The CO3 framework defines resilience as a dynamic form of stability built around five interrelated dimensions. More information on this can be found in D2.1 and D2.3.  

First, robustness over equilibrium highlights that a resilient social contract does not seek sameness or static balance but the capacity to withstand change. Second, adaptive institutions are essential. Resilience requires institutions that can adjust and reform incrementally in response to emerging challenges. Third, pluralism that strengthens resilience by drawing on diversity. Just as biodiversity sustains ecosystems, institutional and social pluralism allows governance systems to absorb shocks and respond creatively to disruption.

Fourth, disequilibrium is recognised as a normal and even productive condition of social life. Tension, uncertainty, and contestation are not signs of failure but drivers of transformation, allowing societies to renew themselves in response to crises.

Finally, feedback loops and learning mechanisms ensure that social contracts remain responsive and legitimate. Through democratic practices such as elections, public deliberation, and civic engagement, societies can assess their performance, learn from experience, and adjust course when needed.

While the examples above concern shifts at the national level , the same principles of resilience can be argued to apply to smaller communities, professional networks, and families. Whenever a group faces transformative change—whether due to economic pressure, organisational reform, or personal upheaval—the ability to adapt, recover, and learn while holding onto shared values becomes vital.

The CO3 framework and the upcoming CO3 model will hence offer insights on not only for policymakers but for anyone navigating change.