Democracy in the Anthropocene

Ever since Donald Trump's election, his authoritarian instincts � cozying up to dictators, ignoring political norms � have raised concerns about the state of democracy.  But what should be especially worrying are the signs that Trump isn't alone in his skepticism of democratic principles.

On Saturday Doug Saunders in The Globe and Mail noted that closer to home � in Canada � many people support the notion that what we need is not our messy democracy, but someone able to exercise strong and decisive leadership.  A recent poll of people in Ontario found majority support for "strong, determined leaders who will... silence the trouble makers".  Yikes.  It's no wonder books are now appearing with titles like How Democracies Die.

Environmental scholars should be talking about this, because democracy is central to the history of ideas about environmental action.  Back when I wrote Nature's Experts: Science, Politics, and the Environment, I devoted a chapter to what I called "Democratic Environmental Science".  I noted the unfortunate history of some environmentalists' reluctance to embrace democracy.  In the 1970s a few writers argued that the environmental crisis was so urgent that the slow machinery of democracy just wouldn't be enough: the times called for a kind of green authoritarianism.  Such ideas are, thankfully, less often heard now among environmental writers.

But the argument can still be made that our democratic machinery just isn't up to dealing with the Anthropocene.  How can elections ensure effective action on a problem like climate change, when the most serious impacts will be felt by those who aren't yet able to vote?  And what about the voices of the majority of the world's population that don't live in the countries most responsible for the problem, and so can't vote out those governments that refuse to take action?

Such ideas about the weaknesses of democracy are seductive, but dangerous and fallacious.  As I explained in Nature's Experts (with arguments that I think still hold up pretty well, after more than a decade), democracy remains the most promising game in town � the only really effective way of addressing collective challenges like the Anthropocene.

Environmental scholars should be taking part in the discussions now happening about democracy: examining how in the past environmental ideas and actions have been linked to forms of democratic practice, or exploring how we can move towards stronger, more genuinely democratic ways of making environmental decisions.  What the Anthropocene needs is more democracy � who is up to working out what that means?