Why Voter Apathy and Populism Are a Climate Issue
A failure to innovate in democratic governance is eating away at democracy’s very existence, resulting in a re-emergence of populism and widespread voter apathy.
Image by Jeanne Menjoulet. Public Domain
Governance and sustainable development are intimately intertwined, in both practical and theoretical ways. In practice, well-functioning democracies act more responsibly vis-à-vis the environment than non-democracies. In theory, the manner in which we have taken democracy for granted and have failed, thus far, to innovate in ways that would ensure the longevity of the democratic project mirrors how we have taken our natural world for granted. Innovation in governance is a key component of sustainable development, considering sustainable development is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (IISD). It is time that we view democracy through the same lens: a failure to innovate in democratic governance is eating away at democracy’s very existence, resulting in a re-emergence of populism and widespread voter apathy. These issues require a multifaceted approach, the positive outcomes of which are mutually-reinforcing: innovating to ensure the sustainability of democracy is good for the environment, and what’s good for the environment is good for democracies.
While 20th century events forced democracies to innovate in governance at the international level — consider shared economic zones like the EU and the creation of the UN’s Environment Programme – these were often not matched with corresponding innovations in governance at the national level. As a result, the exponential rate of change taking place as of late has meant that phenomena such as globalization, increased international connectedness, automation, social media, and so on, while generally positive, have created ripple effects at the national level that have gone unaddressed, and ultimately, festered. To address voter apathy and populism, we must consider the role of education in democratic governance and innovate in this space; only then can we begin to address the particularly sinister combination of voter apathy and populism, and their subsequent impact on the environment.
An “unhealthy” democracy is a breeding ground for environmental inaction.
The assertion that well-functioning democracies behave more responsibly towards the environment might be counterintuitive: an authoritarian regime would, in theory, have an easier time passing climate policy because it would not need to get multiple stakeholders on-board. This line of thinking is supported by how difficult it is at the international level to get stakeholders to act on climate change: the world would be closer to achieving its climate goals if the United Nations (UN) was able to unilaterally impose climate policy and penalize those countries that don’t adhere to the rules.
However, research has shown the opposite to be true at the national level: healthy democracies are associated with lower CO2 emissions, and if the democracy is ‘unhealthy,’ they do not seem to do better than authoritarian regimes. Consider some factors conducive to both climate action and a healthy democracy: the participation of civil society, awareness via a free and open media, and collaboration in international negotiations.
An “unhealthy” democracy, on the other hand, is a breeding ground for environmental inaction. Markers of "unhealthy democracies" include short-term thinking in pursuit of electoral goals, the susceptibility to business interests that run against long-term societal interests, and in more extreme cases, the diminished quality of inspections, monitoring, and ability of bureaucrats to design and implement effective policies. Just as all these indicators endemic to "unhealthy" democracies, so too do they run counter to effective climate action.
The parallels between environmental action and democracy are further underscored in research that compares The Economist’s Democracy Index (2015) and The World Energy Council’s Energy Trilemma Index. The former analyzes the state of democracy in over 160 countries and territories, and ranks them on a scale from “full democracy” to “authoritarian regime.” The latter ranks 130 countries based on three performance indicators: energy security (availability of energy supply), energy equity (national price of energy) and environmental sustainability (effect of a country’s energy source on its greenhouse gas emissions).
What the findings conclude is that authoritarian regimes prioritize energy security and equity over environmental sustainability. The results make sense considering authoritarian regimes’ desire for stability and control; indeed, authoritarian regimes tend to resort to fossil fuels since they are cheap, and a rise in energy prices often leads to social unrest. Full/healthy democracies, in contrast, are more receptive to the sentiments of voters and NGO pressures and can better withstand any shocks resulting from new climate measures, and they ultimately do better in balancing environmental sustainability as a priority as well. An engaged and educated populace is crucial for both environmental and democratic sustainability, and in an era when democracy is being degraded by voter apathy and populism, ensuring the health and longevity of our democracies is an environmental issue.
A plethora of writing has emerged lately in support of liberal arts education to address the issues of our times, including the understanding of and support for environmental conservation. Not only are the liberal arts an education in critical thinking and effective analysis, they’re also an education of different cultures, histories, peoples and societies. The global community must fundamentally rethink its understanding of education and the crucial role it plays in a democracy in order to safeguard democratic values and institutions – values and institutions which are increasingly dependent on environmental preservation. The standard western model of education dates back to the Industrial Revolution and has perpetuated an understanding of education unfit for our times: this view considers education to be an assembly-line that outputs economic actors. We must reimagine and reinvent its purpose as a resource for developing citizens who are engaged with the democratic system, empathetic to their co-citizens and ultimately aware of their impact on the environment.
Recent events in France provide interesting insights into the link between voter apathy/populism and threats to the environment. The country, which has experienced a surge in populism, just saw “the worst riots in a generation” in response to rising fuel prices following the carbon tax introduced by Macron’s government. A measure that many countries are considering adopting as part of their own emissions mitigation strategies, France’s carbon tax led to multiple weekends of protest, culminating on Saturday, December 1, 2018, with what some have described as “urban warfare”; 4 people died, 133 were injured and 412 were arrested. While France is no stranger to public protests, this most recent instance turned exceptionally violent.
Education must be considered a crucial component of democratic governance in order to counter the looming forces of voter apathy and populism.
President Macron has been struggling with waning popularity, in large part because he is understood to represent the elite – a trope often used by populist parties and their leaders to garner support. Unemployment and immigration are common themes that right-wing populist parties take advantage of to rile people up; they paint a simplistic picture by suggesting “the elite” care more about themselves or “the other” than they do “the people.” This isn’t to say the hardships facing the blue-collar French are unfounded, and that the recent carbon tax didn’t add significant pressure to their already-strained wallets. Rather, the sentiment in France among certain demographics has been exploited by opportunistic politicians on the populist right to serve their own agenda. A riled up base, frustrated with unemployment and the idea that immigrants are stealing their jobs, perceived this carbon tax as yet another slight by a President depicted as representing the elite. This societal backdrop was the perfect tinder for the carbon tax’s spark.
Moreover, along The Economist’s Democracy Index, “full democracy” and “authoritarian regime” sit as backstops, with “flawed democracy” and “hybrid regime” falling in between. France classifies as a “flawed democracy” on this spectrum, defined as a nation where elections are free and fair and basic civil liberties are honoured, but where there exist “significant faults in other democratic aspects, including […] low levels of participation in politics and issues in the functioning of governance.” Another “flawed democracy” on this index is the United States. It is worth considering the impact of populism and voter apathy in the United States as well, and how it translated into harmful effects on the environment. The examples are many, but the “Trump Effect,” recently outlined in Joseph Curtin’s publication illustrating President Trump’s long-term impact on global climate action, shows how voter apathy and populism, if unaddressed, will spell disaster for the environment. Consider also newly-elected Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s pledge to open the Amazon to exploitation. Education must be considered a crucial component of democratic governance in order to counter the looming forces of voter apathy and populism. Our democracies, and the climate, depend on it.
Phaedra de Saint-Rome graduated from McGill in 2017 with a joint honours in political science and history. Her time spent on Parliament Hill, with NGOs, and at the UN, and a brief stint in the private sector, led her to recently found So What Canada — an organization committed to informing and engaging Canadians in civic life by both making the headlines more accessible and highlighting work being done by Canadian women in different fields.
Main image: Jeanne Menjoulet