Today, in the second installment of our ‘Democracy’s Weaknesses’ series, we look how democratic systems are struggling and failing to tackle environmental problems like climate change…
 
Environmental issues present a particular problem to the democratic process for many reasons:

Firstly, politicians tend to view issues on a time-scale of no more than six years. The prevailing belief is that if they wish to be re-elected they need to focus on the immediate, pressing concerns that their constituents have and will judge them on at the next election. Consequently, environmental issues, which tend to have far longer time scales (decades rather than years) are often given less prominence in policy debates.

This divergence was arguably best highlighted in the US Congress when Republicans lobbied hard for the repeal of a law mandating the use of environmentally friendly light bulbs. The Republicans claimed that this law was an over-extension of the state and an infringement upon freedom. This position made strategic sense as it was popular with their base and generated a lot of support. Equally, while the Eco-friendly measure they wanted repealed could benefit future generations, their opinions decades in the future have no impact on the next election and as such they do not factor into the political calculations.   

Secondly, due to the global nature of environmental issues people may not be the victims of their own environmentally destructive acts. A report published in 2009 by Kofi Annan’s thinktank claimed that nearly 98% of the people seriously affected by climate change are in developing countries. Conversely all but one of the 12 countries considered least at risk are industrially developed. Because democratic system people tend to vote in their own self-interests, it is unlikely that these 12 countries would embark on any green agenda that would significantly undermine their own energy-hungry lifestyles.

Thirdly democracy works on the idea that the electorate understands the issues and can make an informed choice. This is generally possible, however, much environmental science is complex with only experts in the field able to claim full understanding. This can lead to an over-simplification of ideas when informing the public of an environmental issue. This in turn generates another problems: when simplified expert and non-expert views can sound equally plausible and as such be given the same exposure. This can be a particularly large problem when the non-expert opinion is more optimistic about the future, and therefore prescribes little or no action, as the electorate will want to believe that it is true so they can continue with their current lifestyle.

However intractable these problems at first appear, progress can be made. An improved understanding of science and our impact on the environment could alter what the electorate demands from their leaders so that environmental issues are brought to the fore. This will not be an easy task as it will probably require increased funding in science education and also politicians resisting an easy ‘political win’ in the interests of future generations, but it is not impossible.

We shall be discussing the future of Democracy in India at our forthcoming debate on Tuesday September 27th, 2011 “Democracy is India’s Achilles’ heel”.