The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy

Citation

Reardon, J. (2008), "The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy", On the Horizon, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 169-171. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120810901477

“A new planet is about to be created,” writes David Shearman and Joseph Smith in their provocative new book, “one that is inhospitable, producing less food and water and without the necessary ecological services to support the world's population” (p. xiii).

The authors blame democracy for this predicament. But isn't democracy considered a cherished foundation of western society? And isn't democracy the sine qua non of the environmental movement, a necessary step to make the world a better place?

Not so, according to Shearman and Smith. Democracy fails to “grasp and remedy the emerging economic and ecological crisis facing the entire human race – the most important question of our time” (p. 3).

The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy is the third volume in Praeger's series on “Politics and the Environment,” launched to explore “the interstices between environment, political and security impacts in the twenty‐first century” (p. ix).This book benefits from the authors’ diverse backgrounds – Shearman is a Australian physician who has taught medicine in the UK and the USA; and Smith is an Australian lawyer/philosopher as well as environmental activist.

The first four chapters of The Climate Change Challenge discuss in very readable prose he scientific evidence of the ecological and environmental crisis. Shearman and Smith display an impressive command of the interdisciplinary literature. The next three chapters analyze the shortcomings of democracy, and the final three chapters offer solutions to the crisis.

The reader needs little convincing of the urgency of the current crisis as Shearman and Smith note, “it is fair to say that whichever environmental parameter is being assessed there is remorseless deterioration” (p. xx). The problems – global warming, soil degradation, depletion of fishing grounds, decreasing potable water, deterioration of the commons and species extinction are interrelated with democracy as the progenitor.

Like many important concepts, democracy, ostensibly simple, eludes a commonly accepted definition. Shearman and Smith write that since “each person looks at democracy from their own point of view of society, democracy is what you think it is” (p. 76). There is an element of truth here, since perspectives on democracy differ widely across the globe. Certainly in the west, a central tenet of democracy is rule by the people and participatory decision making; nevertheless, a precise definition is open to interpretation. Furthermore, democracy is intertwined with free market capitalism, making it impossible to separate the effects of each” (p. 12).

But even in this “age of democracy,” only 41 percent of the world's countries are democratic, a number currently decreasing since “most of the newly created democracies of the twentieth century did not survive” (p. 100).

Take away the social cohesion of a typical democracy – nothing more than superficial consumerism abetted by cheap oil – democracy becomes tenuous and ephemeral. Plato, whose influence is ubiquitous in this book, argued that “the seeds for authoritarianism are sown within democracy; thus democracies “are always on the move toward authoritarianism” (p. 100). Indeed, it is a safe bet that confronted with cataclysmic change, “an authoritarian regime will become established to preserve the decaying status quo rather than begin to forge a new system of governance … for throughout human history when those in power are under threat, they have always held on until the bitter end” (p. 124).

Shearman and Smith cite two reasons for the failure of democracy to solve the current ecological crisis. One, its license for greed and individual self‐satisfaction make it “a potentially more environmentally destructive social system than most other systems under which humans have lived” (p. 55). No better example exists than the USA, extolled by its citizens as the paragon of democracy, yet the USA “has failed to put its self‐interest aside” (p. xvii) or use its resources to solve today's pressing environmental problems.

Second, democracies are not capable of “protecting the resources of the commons – the land, sea, air and fresh water needed for survival” (p. 70). Democracy, by giving license to self‐interest and the pursuit of greed, cannot transmute self‐interest into the common good. What might be best for one individual – such as driving to work solo in a gas‐guzzling SUV – is not best for the common good since it exacerbates global warming. The pursuit of self‐interest along with the myopic focus of democratic leaders to attain office, results in a systematic failure to address long‐term concerns, leading to a short‐term pervasive and enervating inertia.

This inertia foments undue optimism that new technology will enable continuation of profligate living standards without sacrifice. Such thinking codifies indolence since “it offers a fix without having to solve difficult problems” (p. 8). And of course, developing new technology requires energy, exacerbating environmental problems. Even though technology might be expedient in the short‐term, it inevitably generates unforseen problems in the long term.

Can democracy be reformed internally by reigning in corporate power and transmuting its profit motive to protect common resources? Forget about it, writes Shearman and Smith, since “a history of corporatism indicates that regulations are there to be demolished or evaded” (p. 37). Traditional economics asserts that we can resolve the problem of the commons by legitimizing and recognizing property rights, such as those that underlie pollution permits. But the market is an institution in which the configuration of power determines who owns property and whose interests will be recognized and served. Thus, the crucial question in the formation of institutions “is not primarily about coercion versus freedom, but about which coercive acts and which interests we defend, so that these interests may thrive” (Vant, 2005, p. 82). Failure to recognize the configuration of power is a major shortcoming of traditional economics vitiating its policy prescriptions. Thus, market‐based solutions have an intrinsic inertia to protect the status quo, while not considering efficacious long‐term solutions.

Shearman and Smith exhort that our most pressing concern is preservation of the human species rather than preservation of one political philosophy or another. Isn't it more compelling, they ask, that our offspring survive in a sustainable world, rather than preserve democracy?

The authors do not advocate a return to Marxist socialism with its dismal and unenviable environmental track record. Instead they proffer the creation of an educated elite where knowledge is consolidated in individuals trained “from childhood to meet the challenging problems of our times” (p. 134). Such elites will pursue knowledge not for its own sake, but for practical knowledge which will give intellectual priority to human problems, the most urgent being peace, poverty, world health and environmental repair” (p. 144). Our current educational system fails miserably at this task, and it is hard to dispute the authors’ claim that “our leaders are primarily trained in institutions that perpetuate and legitimate our environmentally destructive system. The conventional university trains narrow, politically correct thinkers who ultimately become the economic warriors of the system” (p. 133).

A central prerequisite of democracy is “a literate and educated public” (p. 100), but Shearman and Smith have little faith “in the transformation of the masses, at least to the extent needed for a radical democratic transformation of the present system” (p. 165); hence the need for ‘philosopher kings’ to effectuate change to a more sustainable system.

According to the authors’ vision, a small corp of educated elites will be entrusted with steering the fate of humanity. Is this palatable? And will it ameliorate the environmental crisis?

Anticipating criticism, the authors note that currently “democracy is an illusion and ordinary people are to be exploited as these elites see fit” (p. 89). Instead of rule by the people, most democracies are plutocracies “managed by the hidden hand of the financial elite [where] freedom is illusory and diminishing” (p. 131).

Although the authors concede this proposal is a “work in progress” (p. 136), it has a plethora of vexing questions. What will guarantee that the elites nobly work for humanity's survival? Who will train the trainers and how will they obtain their knowledge? What draconian measures will be imposed to ensure that only the elites acquire knowledge? Are we really “innately hard‐wired for authoritarianism” (p. 130) as the authors claim, or is this due to centuries of conditioning? Finally, the authors admit “they have not answered all questions of how to get there” (p. 136). But “how to get there” determines whose vested interests will be served and the nature of the final outcome determined by the configuration of power. What mechanism will ensure that the current configuration of power does not influence the institutional structure supporting the elites? And what will ensure that the elites serve the interests of humanity rather than the plutocracy?

I concede the authors' argument that democracy is not capable of reversing the accelerating deterioration in the environment, but their proposed elitist solution is only one of many. Why are elites more amenable to changing values than the masses? Yes, the “workers might be robotic and the consumers mechanical” (p. 165) but is this due to conditioning by the capitalist system? Perhaps this reveals my bias in education and my sanguine outlook on human nature, but it should be our task to implement a new set of values for all, so that institutions commensurate with sustainability can be erected.

In addition to elitist education, the authors argue for a systematic and holistic reform of the legal, banking and financial system, an end to the incessant need for economic growth, limiting corporate power and reclaiming the commons, all with the objective of achieving an environmentally sustainable society. The authors conclude however that, “it is unlikely that there is any way of saving democracy since the ordinary person … is not made of the right heroic stuff necessary to meet the challenge of our age” (p. 165).

The authors predict that “there is considerable likelihood that some type of economic or ecological crash will occur that will lead to the collapse of our present social system” (p. 136). If the argument of this book is correct, democracy will fail to avert the crisis and society will drift toward authoritarian rule.

This book offers “crisis‐care management” for the inevitable crash with the hope of preserving at least a remnant of civilization afterwards (p. 136). This well‐written book should be read by anyone concerned about the future of democracy and solving our ecological crisis.

Whether you agree or disagree with this book's prognosis, its thought‐provoking message deserves to become part of our daily discourse.