With the rapid upgrading of climate crisis, the voices of more dictatorships have become increasingly rising.If for climate action and concentrate power in the hands of a country that is not responsible for the people, how can we prevent the abuse of power?In the absence of any accountability mechanism, why does the authoritarian regime really solve the problem of climate change?
This summer, with a record temperature, fatal flood, and raging wildfire (just destroyed all trees equivalent to Germany in Canada), it makes people feel like the final warning: if you do not take emergency and fierce actionsThe current climate emergency will evolve into an inevitable climate disaster.
Some people may think that we have reached such a point: the only opportunity we have made a sufficient and powerful response to threats is to accept decisive national authority, or even thorough authoritarianism.However, it is a dangerous fantasy to think that authoritatives with ecological consciousness will be better than democratic leaders.
It is not new to worry about whether democratic countries can quickly and effectively take action.The government that allows everyone to participate (theoretically, but not always the same) will produce an imperfect and slow system.Influential participants can usually deduct the actions that most people support.On the other hand, the so -called irrational people have too much power. They have only surged in the dark for a long time, and they burst into a comprehensive outbreak in the Trump era.For example, voters tend to punish politicians who take measures to prevent disasters, but they are rewarded with the seemingly heroic politicians in the disaster, although disaster relief is much more expensive than disaster prevention.
In addition to well -known prejudices (many are as ancient as Plato's works), people can say that certain benefits of democracy are not important under the emergency of the climate.One of the facts that democratic countries are proud is that every decision can be re -examined, the policy can be updated and improved. The loser in an election can become a winner in the next election, so there is reason to continue to play democratic games.But climate -related decisions will have a significant and irreversible consequences.Therefore, even if the wrong choice, such as doing too little, re -examine it later, serious damage has been caused.
Other contemporary criticism is even more straightforward.The foundation of democratic countries is compromise, but bargaining often causes a mess, especially in multi -party systems, because too many different political participants want to pay for their wishes.Germany's current ruling alliance seems to be a good example.It takes time to correct this confusion. Under normal circumstances, democratic countries may have time to disorder anyway, but in the face of the earth that becomes hotter and closer to the end of the world, there is definitely no time for democratic countries.
Another key issue comes from the actual dominant position of commercial interests in capitalist democracy.In view of the fact that climate action will inevitably damage the interests of at least some capitalists, these interests may prevent timely (or forever) to take necessary measures.
Now, with the rapid upgrading of the climate crisis, the voices of more dictatorship have been increasingly demanding.Some people advocate a more technical bureaucracy and regard China as a glorious example.Ironically, China is the world's largest greenhouse gas emission country, which obviously ignores this.Others, especially Swedish thinkers Andreas Malm, envisioned a new form of Ninetic communism during wartime communism.
These schemes bring some obvious problems, but their supporters have never completely solved these problems.If for climate action and concentrate power in the hands of a country that is not responsible for the people, how can we prevent the abuse of power?In the absence of any accountability mechanism, why does the authoritarian regime really solve the problem of climate change?People really think that the strong interest group that hinders climate actions is not equally strong or even more powerful under the authoritarian authority system?
The authoritarian government is famous for corruption.Therefore, it is not credible to believe that such a system will have no "special interests" and the idea of being able to manage the management of neutral and rational technical bureaucrats.In fact, turning to authoritarian decision -making not only does not support climate actions, but may make things worse.
Climate authoritarianism may also be counterproductive in a less obvious way.Opposition is inevitable in having a trace of freedom.If the official believes that it is necessary to take new restrictions to calm down criticism or resist, they are likely to eventually erode other basic freedom, including the freedom of generating and exchanging potential changes.
Imagine this scene: A group of climate scientists condemned the policy of insufficient policy of climate dictators and tried to mobilize others to take stronger action.In order to restore the "order", dictators have adopted measures to restrict academic freedom and associated freedom.Now, experts can not only affect the country's climate response; they will not have the opportunity to play or share the ideas and innovations that can enhance our collective ability to deal with climate challenges.
Of course, these do not necessarily mean that the democratic system is particularly suitable for promoting climate actions.On the contrary, people may draw conclusions: there are no good political tools at all.But this ignores a key point: today's democratic countries have adopted obstacles to effective climate actions, not inherent.On the contrary, they do not match the ideal of democracy and should be eliminated in a well -operated democratic country.
For example, the influence of the fossil fuel industry on the political process is not proportional, which is not only harmful to the environment, but also fundamentally not democratic.Even if there is no urgent need to respond to the emergency climate, citizens have sufficient reasons to change.The conclusion is clear: If we do not take the climate emergency seriously, we will not be able to save democracy; and if we do not take the ideal of democracy seriously, we will not be able to save the climate.
Author Jan-Werner Mueller is a professor of political science from Princeton University recently.
