In this article, I readdress the issue of rationality, which has been so far considered in western liberal democracies and in planning theory as procedural, and more recently as post-political in the post-foundational approach, aiming to show how it can gain a substantive and politicising character. I first discuss the problems and limits of the treatment of rational thinking as well as rational consensus-seeking as merely procedural and post-political. Secondly, utilising the notion of Realrationalität of Flyvbjerg, I discuss how rationality attains a politicising role due to its strong relationship with power. Using the concept of planning rationality aiming at public interest, I present the general position and actions of professional organisations in Turkey, focusing on the Chamber of City Planners, as an example illustrative of my argument. I finally argue that rationality becomes a substantive issue that politicizes planning, when it is put forward as an alternative to authoritarian market logic. In doing so, I adopt the Rancièrian definition of the political, defined as disclosure of a wrong and staging of equality. In conclusion, I first emphasize the importance of avoiding quick rejections of the concepts of rationality and consensus in the framework of planning activity and planning theory and secondly, call for a broader definition of the political; the political that is not confined to conflict but is open to rational thinking and rational consensus.

在本文中，我将重新讨论理性问题，迄今为止，西方自由民主国家和计划理论中已将理性问题视为程序性的问题，最近又将其作为基础后方法中的后政治性问题进行了探讨，旨在展示其如何获得利益。实质性和政治性。我首先讨论仅在程序上和后政治上处理理性思维以及寻求理性共识的问题和局限性。其次，利用弗莱夫比约（Flyvbjerg）的房地产分配（Realrationalität）概念，讨论理性如何因其与权力的密切关系而实现政治化作用。我使用针对公共利益的规划合理性概念，介绍了土耳其专业组织的一般立场和行动，重点是城市规划师商会，以举例说明我的论点。我最后争辩说，当理性被提出来替代专制市场逻辑时，理性就成为使计划政治化的实质性问题。在此过程中，我采用了Rancièrian的政治定义，即对错误的揭露和平等的阶段。最后，我首先强调避免在计划活动和计划理论的框架内迅速拒绝理性和共识概念的重要性，其次，要求对政治进行更广泛的定义。不仅限于冲突，而且对理性思考和理性共识持开放态度的政治。被定义为公开错误和平等的阶段。最后，我首先强调避免在计划活动和计划理论的框架内迅速拒绝理性和共识概念的重要性，其次，要求对政治进行更广泛的定义。不仅限于冲突，而且对理性思考和理性共识持开放态度的政治。被定义为公开错误和平等的阶段。最后，我首先强调避免在计划活动和计划理论的框架内迅速拒绝理性和共识概念的重要性，其次，要求对政治进行更广泛的定义。不仅限于冲突，而且对理性思考和理性共识持开放态度的政治。