The democratic sustainability of the European project

We know that we must act now to fight climate change. But there are limits to democracy achieving environmental sustainability

We know thousands of animals are becoming extinct through human actions. We know that we are jeopardizing the future of coming generations, including that of our children and grandchildren. We know that we must act now to fight climate change and to secure long-term sustainability. We know. Economists know. Politicians know. And yet, we all focus on short-term interests. We want to pay fewer taxes and decrease unemployment. Economists want to maximize profits and politicians want to be re-elected. This toxic circuit makes long-term focus and structural transformations unlikely, raising the question ofwhether democracy is sustainable at all.

The question has been discussed ever since the ‘crisis theories’ of the 1970s. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the ongoing process of modernisation reinforced emancipatory claims for individual freedom, self-determination and self-fulfilment, but also deepened doubts about whether democracy is suitable as a political tool for restructuring contemporary societies towards sustainability. The good news is that we have our blueprint: it’s the combination of UN Agenda 2030 (17 SDGs) and the European Commission’s European Green Deal. Democracies are also more cooperative in international environmental agreements and tend to comply with international environmental treaties, and honor them by ratifying domestic legislation. Democratic institutions provide the necessary means for increasing public awareness about environmental issues or illustrate the positive change, such as the recorded decline in emissions. Freedom of expression and freedom of the press allow media outlets to inform the population about environmental problems and expose environmental issues as political failures. Freedom of association provides opportunities for environmental interest groups to organize as non-governmental organizations and to inform the public through their educational campaigns. Political ecologists, in particular, have argued that the liberation of the environment and the empowerment of citizens are two sides of the same coin.

The limits to democracy

However, there are limits to democracy achieving environmental sustainability. An increasingly uneven distribution of wealth in some parts of the world and accelerating climate change might suggest that democratic, economic, social and environmental progress cannot always go hand in hand. Democratic systems are hard-pressed to generate majorities for policies that burden citizens with costs or restrictions mainly for the benefit of people in distant parts of the world and for something as seemingly abstract as biodiversity or global climate. And, perhaps most importantly, democracy is always seen as emancipatory, which has mainly implied the enhancement of (individual) rights and (material) living conditions. It is not really suited to restricting the rights or material conditions affecting the majority – unless the benefits are immediately tangible. For all their undeniable achievements, techno-managerial policy approaches have so far been unable to bring about anything like the profound structural transformations that are required if an internationalised consumer society is ever to become sustainable.

After the fiasco of international climate politics in Copenhagen, after international investment banks were declared too big to fail, and after the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, it is clear how ambiguously priorities are set. For example, GHG emissions could be dramatically reduced through a gradual increase in a worldwide-agreed carbon price, combined with increased availability of affordable alternative fuels, green-technology and the relevant infrastructure to support their use on a massive scale. Such policies, if implemented efficiently, could be imperceptible in the daily lives of most people and businesses while demonstrating their the necessity to human survival, making the adoption of eco-authoritarian policies more palatable.

With this in mind, we must ask ourselves whether our current democratic structures can overcome cultural, economic and structural myopia to stimulate long-term sustainability, and whether they are capable of enabling responsibility for the future. If this is not the case, then YES, the political system must change. But politicians are as dependent on us as we are on them when it comes to working towards a sustainable future. So what can we do? How can we create a climate in which both citizens and politicians are open to institutional innovation? A climate which combines sustainability and democratization?

As it is with every prediction of the future, only time will tell if democratic structures are really capable of managing our green transition, while simultaneously ensuring that the European project will survive. But if this pandemic taught us one thing, then that we, as a society, are more adaptable to changes in our behaviour, then we ever thought we were. What is needed now, is the will and the assertiveness of politicians, economists and the general citizen, to work collectively to shape sustainability in the way that is needed.