TH!NK post

This article is archived. Comments are closed.

Democracy v. Sustainability?

Published 17th October 2009 - 5 comments - 796 views -

In one of her blog posts, Aija discussed people’s habits and why they struggle to change them for the sake of the environment. I decided to comment on this and we eventually ended up in a discussion about government intervention. I argued that environment protection is one of those fields in which the state should maybe "force" people to act and thus ensure a collective effort towards a specific end. However, in a democracy, this requires majorities (among people and even more importantly among politicians) in favor of such coercion. Does that mean that democracy constitutes an obstacle to sustainability?

As so many scientific theories suggest, human beings are rational and selfish creatures and always do what will result in their greatest advantage. This also means that they will opt for national policies which are most beneficial to them. Policies aiming at sustainability, however, usually don’t have that effect and often even work to the contrary. At least, this is most people’s perception, as their outlook is focused on the immediate rather than on long-term developments which probably won’t affect them anymore. Thus, even if national leaders are responsible enough to recognize the need for changes in order to secure sustainability, it might be impossible for them to bring those changes about in the face of disapproving masses.

Examples of this can be found in great numbers in recent German politics. With a population significantly shrinking and aging, Germany’s social security system, particularly the pension system, will be impossible to sustain in the present form for future generations. However, important reforms, reducing the amounts of unemployment benefits or pensions, are passionately resisted by German citizens. And who is to blame them? Why should they vote for or support a policy that decreases their income, only to secure that of imaginary people in the future? Younger people may be more in favor of sustainable development because they know that they might still be affected by the consequences of non-action. But they will age, too, and the circle of what we call the "generational conflict" will always be complete.

In regard to environmental issues, a similar attitude can be found. Why should people change their convenient behavior if this was to diminish their quality of life, while benefitting only future generations? In order to achieve sustainability, then, it might be much more effective if the government simply "forced" us to behave eco-friendly and responsibly rather than to wait for us to become "selfless". In this manner, Germany has introduced the "green dot" for recyclable waste as well as so-called "eco-zones" in many downtown areas. One might argue that, after all, it is not only the state’s duty to protect its present but also its future citizens from potential harm. But such action will never be possible without approval of the present public.

I would thus conclude that democracy might indeed sometimes constitute an obstacle to sustainable solutions. However, this is clearly not to say that any other form of political organization would be favorable in this respect. It is fairly unlikely that a dictator, a selfish person himself, would care much about the well-being of future generations. Besides, the initial emergence of the environmentalism itself probably owes a great deal to democracy. So what to do with this as an environmentalist? It might be easy to simply lobby governments and have them decide above people’s heads, assuming that these decision-makers "know better". But it might be right to work even harder and try to make citizens responsible enough to enable truly democratic and sustainable decisions. What do you think?

Category: Sustainable Development, | Tags:



Comments

Aija Vanaga on 18th October 2009:

These questions struggle in my mind all day long. This is question that can be asked in every field. I ask this question in my job now. How I can motivate - involve - keep kids, who would need some other action and possible ways of living and perceiving the world. I do not know.
I would like to know how to force people to leave their comfort zones and think on more wider perspective.
Regarding to your blog - these issues go together with consuming more and more and for that we need more and more money. We have forgot that there are other things in life than TV and shopping that can make you feel more relaxed and simply happier. And pity that amount of sex and sport people have in Europe is decreasing as well..
This is all together. System of political decision making is something abstract to people who have been born in democracy and do not know and use privileges of it. How we can change? How we can change people, if they do not know - want - believe? And all over - should we change? Or maybe it is like old story .. start to change yourself ..?

Daniel Nylin Nilsson on 19th October 2009:

I think there are two questions here:

a. If sustainable living needs political decisions rather than free market solutions.

This I would answer yes to.

b. Should the government force its citizens to live more sustainable.

I don’t share this view of history, and I would really like to see any theory about man as a rational egoist that can be proven scientifically.

There are so many examples out there of people not acting rational, in all kinds of situations. Think of the financial crisis, could it occur if people acted rationally? Or think about the people who votes for Le Pen in France, what can they possibly win in rational terms from voting for a far right wing alternative? People are not rational, at least that is my opinion wink

Our unsustainable lifestyle today is not a result from “normal” people. It was forced upon them/us, many times against protests, by the state that believed, and still believe, blindly in large scale enterprise, doing verything they could to create a mass market of consumers to attract big business. Environmental concerns came very late, and people were aware long before their politicians. I think this is the case also today.

So, democracy is not an obstacle to environmentalism, they are very much related

Lukas Blasius on 19th October 2009:

Well, I think it is easy to confuse “rationality” with something like “reason”. The financial crisis, for example, happened because people didn’t act “reasonably” but “rationally” maximized their own profit. What I mean then is a completely value-free form of “rationality”. An extreme example would be a group of people stranded on an island. It might be “rational” to kill half of them so that the other half survives, although that would be morally inacceptable. Luckily, most people also adhere to moral values, but there is certainly a tendency towards this kind of “rational” and selfish behavior. Of course, there is no ultimate scientific “proof” of that, but it is a widely accepted assumption, especially in economic theory.

In regard to your view that government “forced” an unsustainable lifestyle upon us, I would also disagree. I don’t think there was a lot of popular resistance when industrialization and mass consumption emerged and provided millions of people with work and a much higher standard of living. Environmental concerns came a long time after this initial development and were largely confined to a small fraction of the population. If indeed the majority of people rejected an unsustainable lifestyle, I am pretty sure that there would have been a lot more progress towards environment protection already.

Daniel Nylin Nilsson on 21st October 2009:

This is a philosophical question, and not one with any real answer… but still I don’t think even financial markets behave rationally. After all they borrowed out as much money as possible to people they knew couldn’t pay back, and hoped that everything would go fine.
There were plenty of people who put two and two together and said that this was not going to work, but the players didn’t judge their reports rationally.

Also, just think about your own consumption? How often do you buy something based on rational choice,  and how often do you buy something too expensicve, too fancy, just because you want? Why do people buy iPhones for example? There is no rational reason, but Apple (kudos to them)  know how to make a product that speaks to your feelings more than your brain.

Regarding people vs. politicians in evironmental matters, my opinion is based on Swedish history pretty much.

What I mean is that the state has consciously legislated in a way that is good for big industry, and bad for small industry, in agriculture for example. The EU is doing it themselves,by making farmers depend on subsidies, that are given out according to the size of your farm. In which way does this supportsustainable farming? It actively counteracts it, I think.

Another example are the expansion of motorways - they are pretty much always built against the will of the local people, but they don’t have a say at all. And the result is increased traffic.

I think the whole Not-In-My-Backyard phenomenon is just a reaction to this refusal from big society to hear the view of the locals.

People don’t always elect the greenest politicians for office, but my point is that local communities pretty much always offer more sustainable solutions than their governments.

Paul Montariol on 26th November 2009:

Our society have succeeded a lot.
Perhaps too much.
It has forgotten to think .. for what?
And now it is the question!
Before, the question of war or peace was very strong.
Perhaps in a few months we find the same ..
I hope not but i am not sure!

This article is archived. Comments are closed.