In III. therefore, the institutions of democracy are at the center of the debate. These are just some of the essential, thought-provoking questions addressed in this volume from a variety of angles and perspectives.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
INTRODUCTION
This means that the processes of democracy must reflect consideration of the rights and interests of the non-human world. Others argue that new institutions will be needed for democracy to function in the context of the ecological crisis.
THE DISCOURSE OF GREEN MOVEMENTS
PARADOXES OF COMMUNITY
Community may well constitute the 'locus' of some of the paradoxes that characterize green politics. This, as Young notes, involves 'the recognition by each individual of the individuality of all others.
GREEN PARTIES, NONVIOLENCE AND POLITICAL OBLIGATION
This discovery is one of the main reasons for the use and support of violence…. In the question of the state monopoly on violence, I am not prepared to compromise even an inch' (Hülsberg 1988:175).
WORKER CO-OPERATIVES AND GREEN POLITICAL THEORY
Fourth, the Greens also believe that cooperatives will improve the quality of life in the workplace. Second, are all cooperatives, or most cooperatives, better for the environment than capitalist companies? In both respects, green writers appear largely unaware of the extensive academic literature on cooperatives.
But even in a fully cooperative economy, many of the factors that induce cooperatives to adopt forms of representative democracy will still apply. It is also important to recognize the role of external constraints on individual cooperatives. The second hypothesis suggests that cooperatives will be more favorable to the environment than conventional capitalist firms.
It seems reasonable to assume that cooperatives will be sensitive to the explicit interests of the local community. But there are good reasons why cooperatives can be less damaging to the environment than capitalist enterprises.
GREEN POLITICS AND DEMOCRATIC THEORY
MUST DEMOCRATS BE ENVIRONMENTALISTS?
Of the many further arguments that can be adduced in support of this view, two are particularly significant. If democracy has value, then so do each of the conditions necessary for its sustainability. Austin and Schill conclude from their examination of the consequences of pollution distribution in the United States that:.
Standard arguments against taking into account some of the fundamental interests of future generations fall away in the face of the argument about democratic rights. As strong as the claim is that Democrats should be environmentalists, it is hardly watertight. Some of the problems identified in the discussion of a green democratic right can only be addressed in terms of values outside democracy.
The first of these is the acceptance of the precautionary principle with regard to certain avoidable environmental risks. 1994) ‘Green Political Theory and the State’, in P.Dunleavy and J.Stanyer (eds) Contemporary Political Studies 1994, London: Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom.
GREEN DEMOCRACY The search for an ethical solution
Liberal political theory therefore has something to say about the nature of the democratic process, it is simply reserved for political outcomes. Finally, I have argued that I am concerned with an ecocentric ethics, one that finds value in the nonhuman world and leads to the expansion of moral community. Primary among these is that the political order is constructed for, by and from the people – in other words, there is some coherence between the nature of the political and the moral community.
In other words, we will have to consider whether such political systems represent a real expansion of the moral community. Being process-oriented and changing the nature of political representation (in line with an extended moral community) would mean that we could expect green(equal) outcomes without prescribing the ends of the political process. One of the anomalies of green political theory is that it need not guarantee green political outcomes – only a reconstruction of the political process.
2 By 'the expansion of the moral community' I simply mean the increase in the number of individuals, species or systems that become morally significant. It is quite clear that such sacrifices may be necessary on a practical level and we will have to risk the abuse of the democratic process.
SUSTAINABILITY, POLITICAL JUDGEMENT AND CITIZENSHIP
The essential indeterminacy and normative character of the concept of sustainability implies, I argue, that it must be understood as a discursive concept. It is the “primacy of the political” that serves to endorse the non-contingent place of democracy within ecologism. In short, it is necessary to place the economics of sustainable development within the general context of the 'ethics and politics of sustainability'.
We can think of this as involving constitutional provisions for safeguarding the interests of non-humans as well as future citizens. The role of the citizen and the exercise of citizenship are constitutive of the latter by building an agreed "sense of sustainability". It is only through this process that green politics can be understood, as I believe it should, as a politics of.
While we include future generations in the making of sustainability as members of a "community of justice", the inclusion of non-humans is a matter of (some) of them being included as members. 12 A comprehensive account of this might lead green politics to a quasi-Rousseauian interest in the democratic articulation of the "general will" as opposed to the empirical "will of all."
DEMOCRATISING GREEN THEORY Preconditions and principles
The assumption is that green value theory is driven by notions of the good rather than the good. We assume that proponents of green values believe that these are the "right" values, and that proponents of a sustainable society believe that this is the "right" kind of society to live in. In summary, the success of the 'argument from preconditions' within the context of discursive democracy seems ambiguous.
The best general formulation of the right we need is that provided by Eckersley above—in terms of autonomy. Thus the 'argument from prerequisites' must be reminded of the importance of principle (autonomy), and the 'argument from principle' must be reminded of the importance of conditions (ecological and social). Because if it is true that the truths of the ecological position are more likely to arrive.
3 In this context, Dryzek makes much of the 'new social movements', which he believes represent 'real-world approximations' to the ideal of discursive democratic practice (Dryzek 1990a:49). For humans, the filler for the D in the 'in virtue' sentence is provided by 'the rational faculty'.
THE INSTITUTIONS OF A GREEN DEMOCRACY
ECOLOGICAL CITIZENS AND
ECOLOGICALLY GUIDED DEMOCRACY
These relate to the second part of the problem of "double democratization" - the reconstruction of the state to enable the fulfillment of ecological demands at the national and international level. It is also necessary to consider the additional dimensions of the environmental problem in relation to other species and future generations. However, partly because of the territorial boundaries of the nation-state, ecological citizens also increasingly work 'beyond' and 'around' as well as 'within and against'.
Together, these developments are reshaping the definition of the 'relevant community' and the 'relevant actors' for democratic participation and representation of environmental issues. This leads to challenges in expanding the boundaries of existing political citizenship beyond the previously relatively homogeneous notions of the 'nation state' and 'national community'. This reiterates the importance of 'double democratization'. the development of the state and a counterbalancing public sphere – for ecological democracy.
The international dimension of the environmental crisis discussed at the beginning of this chapter will have to be accommodated, for. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London: Sage. 1992) 'Politics and the reconstruction of the concept of civil society', in A.
SUSTAINABILITY, COMMUNITY AND DEMOCRACY
This is not the case, and in this chapter a defense of the 'radical' premise will be offered. But in this chapter I will limit myself to the institutional aspects of the environmental issue.1. This is due to the moral starting point mentioned earlier: even in the pursuit of sustainability, people should be treated as equals.
There is no common way of life underlying the demands of the neutral state' (Kymlicka 1990:225). At the transnational level, the outlook is dim, judging by the results of the Earth Summit. The same question must be asked in light of the inequality between rich and poor countries.
Cohen and Rogers think mainly of minority faction or 'the exploitation of the many by the few'. With regard to how sustainability is to be achieved, the first of the three questions posed on p.
THE ECOLOGICAL RESTRUCTURING OF THE STATE
In this case, although it is in everyone's interest to make the water cleaner, none of the participants is willing to voluntarily contribute significantly to it, and the participants will not take any initiative of their own to prevent pollution unless the benefits to individuals outweigh the costs. According to many thinkers, only some dominant force - the state - can ensure that this kind of behavior is stopped and is capable of forcing all participants to contribute to the elimination of water pollution. Garret Hardin (1973) applied this chain of reasoning to the use of "Commons" in our world.
The selfish actions of the participants will, according to Hardin, inevitably produce an environmental tragedy unless people are prepared to consent to a system where socially responsible behavior can be 'forced'. The only form of coercion I recommend is mutual coercion agreed upon by the majority of the people concerned. Hardin 1973:145) William Ophuls (1973) makes use of the same reasoning as Hardin when he emphasizes the necessity of a supra-individual decision-making power and the need for coercive measures by the state to save the environment.
Only a robust center of power - the state - will be able to resist the influence of organized commerce and industry, whose primary goals are growth of production, increase of profits and long-term survival in a highly competitive market economy, not protection of the environment. . Companies willing to act in a more environmentally friendly way run the risk of being shut out of the market due to the higher prices of their products.
