Governments are not perfect and their shortfalls will impede their efforts to address the climate change crisis.
Governance ranges from the most democratic to the most autocratic, and within that spectrum governing is based on decisions that are always political. A single decision can make or break a political career, or it can make governing ever more difficult.
A democratic or autocratic government official considers how a decision will be received, supported or resisted by anyone affected by it. When that test threatens the decision, the decision is not made. This vulnerability is more pronounced with democracies.
The Economist Intelligence Unit produces the annual Democracy Index (1) that groups governments into: “Full Democracies”, “Flawed Democracies”, “Hybrid Regimes” and “Authoritarian Regimes.”
Democracies can and do change. Once, the United States, ranked among the “Full Democracies” fell to be a “Flawed Democracy” during the course of one year, historically, in the blink of an eye. The Weimar Republic in 1930s Germany allowed for the democratic election of Hitler (2) who eventually grabbed dictatorial powers in 1933. Twelve years later, Europe was torn apart and Germany was destroyed. Governments can be ephemeral.
Capitalism, that world of economics mixed with politics, is often perceived as the enemy of democracy since it is said to spread control of a government to non-elected, economically advantaged people who bear financial influences on society and politicians.
One could argue that capitalism, although flawed, does undermine the concept of government by the people for the people. In its purest form, the theory of a laissez-faire economy (3) proposes that an economy will stabilize itself by maintaining a balance between production and consumerism. But this concept failed with the various market crashes during the 20th and 21st centuries.
A democratic government can enact laws that protect its citizens, but these efforts can be tenuous. With the Great Depression, the US Congress passed the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act prohibiting banks from investing the financial reserves of its customers on the open market, which led to economic stability for more than 50 years. Bill Clinton repealed the last vestiges of the act in 1999 (4) and this among other factors led to the mortgage crisis of 2008.
On the other hand, history has also taught that capitalism cannot be strictly controlled by government bureaucracy. Economies strictly controlled by totalitarian regimes have, at one time or another, suffered or collapsed. Think Russia, China, Venezuela, Argentina, Cuba, etc.
It seems that as long as a balance between capitalism and a government is maintained, governments have a better chance of functioning effectively.
Whether the forces of capitalism are right or wrong for the benefit of humans, capitalism, dominated by profit, remains a force of influence outside of governments as they try to deal with climate change.
The selection of democratic candidates usually requires few legally prescribed qualifications. The Canada Elections Act (5) makes no reference to skills or knowledge in the fields of law, economics, governance or human relations, and this implies that any person over the age of 18 years who qualifies as a voter could be elected to high office. Meanwhile, special interests like corporations or the wealthy can influence the selection and election of candidates who demonstrate the ability to get elected with a predominant commitment to their individual supporters. Bonus if the candidates are competent to govern.
And there are few legal restrictions for democratic electors. The right to vote is sacrosanct in a democracy and anyone who is registered may vote. But, despite the intelligence of voters, are they equipped, competent or prepared to select a candidate for the job? If electors do not assume their civil responsibility between and during campaigns by understanding government, the real issues and the qualifications of candidates while being aware of their own biases and skilled in targeting factual information, how can they vote competently?
Voter participation is declining. Ontario’s recent provincial election was decided by about 43 per cent of electors (6). The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IIDEA) monitors voter turn-out across the globe (7). In 2016, its “Voter Turn-out Trends around the World” reported, “the global average voter turnout has decreased significantly since the early 1990s … to reach 66 per cent in the period of 2011–15.”
While one could argue that report is dated and does not reflect variations between countries, it does, however, raise the specter of declining voter participation.
Post-election hand-wringing on low voter turn-outs rarely addresses their underlying reasons. When voters feel they are not being heard and candidates are not held accountable for their election promises, when an individual feels there’s little they can do, why should they vote?
A wrenching example of candidate non-accountability can be found in a Supreme Court ruling by Mr. Justice Paul Rouleau who said, “Imposing a duty of care in the circumstances (McGuinty’s 2003 campaign promises) … would interfere with the concept of parliamentary sovereignty.” This implied that parliament, once elected, is answerable only to itself and if we should expect anything else, in the words of Ontario’s Superior Court, we are, “… naïve about the democratic system.” (8).
So, tough nuggies, voter.
Accordingly, how will flawed governments deal with a global climate change crisis?
A crisis is an event that is unforeseen, abnormal, bears unpredictable results and taxes existing resources that might not be sufficient. At any given time, governments are aware of, or trying to deal with, crises or emergencies.
All governments have finite person power, skills, technology or finances, and given the litany of crises that have caused severe damage throughout history, we know that government resources are frequently surpassed.
Unfettered global warming will result in droughts, wild fires, rising oceans, heat waves, floods, crop failures, forced migrations, disrupted supply chains and economic collapses.
Governments will not deal effectively with the climate change crisis because effective preparation will only start when the cascading tipping points are painfully affecting their critical mass of voters. Unfortunately, that will only occur as governments are in crisis mode and that state of affairs is not conducive to making good decisions.
Despite our common elements, there is much that divides our species.
While we might value diversity, racism still exists and religious beliefs among the 4,300 identified faith groups (9) create separate camps that can ultimately foster wars and conflict. We are aware of the many divisive factors that separate us: social strata, economic disparities, generation gaps and professional or occupational affiliations. Sexual orientation and gender expression are hot topics these days and before that there has been a consistent difference between men and women that can disrupt our cohesiveness.
There are about 195 countries (10), depending on when one makes that count and they are all protecting their self-interests. Meanwhile, we are aware of these factors, but limited in understanding or empathising with the values and troubles of these disparate groups.
Our species has developed a tremendous capacity to learn and understand, but we still live with brains that prefer pleasure and joy to pain and discomfort. We carry biases throughout our lives, sometimes within our awareness and too frequently without. Understanding today’s complex issues requires time and energy and if we are lucky, we can understand the important things that surround us. No one can understand everything.
This is not an issue of intelligence, but an issue of focus, time and skills. How many people, burdened with supporting a family, managing an illness, dealing with debt, or planning an expensive vacation can effectively understand the issues overwhelming their attention?
Technology is helping greatly with labour-saving devices and access to information, but it has its downside as it increases our dependence on its advantages – for example, to the detriment of our declining memories and skills. How many phone numbers does one recall without using speed-dial keys or when did one read a road map without using a GPS?
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) released a January 2021 report entitled “The Peoples' Climate Vote” which was based on surveys of 1.2 million respondents in 50 countries. (11)
The report indicated encouraging signals that “people” are increasingly aware of the issues and that they expect more action by their governments, but it appears that an appreciation for the immediacy of the crisis is missing. A critical mass of global commitment and action is needed to channel the efforts of governments, corporations and populations to undertake the collective action required of the climate change crisis. While the Tipping Point clock keeps ticking, understanding and commitment remain too low as people take comfort in turning a blind eye, hoping they or their children will not be affected, hoping a strong leader or a new untested technology will come along to turn things around.
Can the human species accept the significance of how little time is left?
Since concerted action by governments and corporations may only be triggered by crises, individuals will be left to deal with their own personal emergencies. Living in a new reality of financial insecurity, overwhelming climate refugees (12), wildfires, floods, shrinking food supplies and more unknowns will require a resilience most people just don’t have.
People in crisis are capable of great, selfless deeds, but they can also be susceptible to fear, panic and confusion. The need for good information will increase and this will be hampered by vacillating leaders unprepared for the crises, and communication technologies that add to the confusion by causing people to reject objective truths.
Adding extreme stress to the confusion may well undermine efforts to collaborate on achieving goals that are not understood or acceptable to everyone. Since our society is not structured to force large populations into unpopular or inconvenient action, resolving or coping with a cascade of crises will require co-operation and co-operation needs competent leadership. Can we trust leadership to be competent?
Whether we deal with climate change or suffer its consequences, changes will be required of individuals. Many industries and economies will adjust or disappear. Workforces will have to be re-directed, retrained and supported while in transition. Supply chains and social structures will be re-organized and international relationships improved to foster collaboration. And these changes will be resisted by people wanting to keep what they have and those not trusting communications or government directions.
Sooner, or later, however, change will be required and the ability to do so will be critical. Some will access the evolving opportunities and others will not. As the avenues of change accelerate, opportunities will become more diverse and different opinions and beliefs will shape perceptions. Co-operation will need greater discourse and communication.
Changing beliefs is difficult, including our own. Sometimes this is impossible (13). Opinions on the other hand can be more easily changed, but this relies on the ability of the opinionated to value and accept alternatives. Diverse opinions and beliefs will have to be blended to achieve the needed cooperation.
We like to think negotiations can be effective with discourse and meaningful dialogue, but who has the skills for these negotiations? The self-directed questions of “when have I changed the opinion of another through dialogue and when has my opinion been changed by another?” might yield startling results – if we can be honest with ourselves. The probability of effective dialogue about critical issues among the masses is likely very slim because effective dialogue can be very complex and demanding. Specific skills and aptitudes are required and most people are ill-equipped to negotiate mutual agreements with others with a different view who are equally stressed, convinced, fearful or angry.
All too frequently, a different view is perceived as an opposing view and this only increases polarization on the subject at hand. Regrettably, it takes very little to shut down meaningful dialogue as repeated attempts fail. Both parties can walk away thinking, “There’s no sense talking to those stupid people.”
Professional negotiators can succeed with effective negotiations, but they are in short supply and not available within the millions who will need to change.
Our hope may rest with the possibility that the leaders and decision-makers will be able to resolve the divergent views among themselves. And what are the chances of that?
André Clement lives in Greater Sudbury. He is the author of “Evolution to Extinction, a Primer on Global Warming”. This is the third part of a four-part series. You can read Part One here and Part Two here.
Sources
(1) Economist Intelligence Unit, Democracy Index 2021 Less Than Half the World Lives In a Democracy: https://www.eiu.com/n/democracy-index-2021-less-than-half-the-world-lives-in-a-democracy/
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power
(4) https://www.thebalance.com/glass-steagall-act-definition-purpose-and-repeal-3305850
(5)https://www.ourcommons.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch04&Seq=3&Language=E
(6) https://www.elections.on.ca/en.html
(7) https://www.idea.int/gsod/global-report
(9) http://web.archive.org/web/20140822060705/http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
(11) https://www.undp.org/publications/peoples-climate-vote
(12) The UNHCR reports that over 100 million people are displaced in the world today
(13) Agustín Fuentes, Why We Believe: Evolution and the Human Way of Being
