The Connection between Environmental Values and Democracy - Essay Example

The Connection between Environmental Values and Democracy: The Cases of the United s, Great Britain, China, and Russia Introduction The increasing attention given to the idea of democracy shows a common displeasure with characteristics of current political processes, on the one hand, and an insightful understanding that other processes are possible alternatives. Within present theory of democracy, there is an appearing interest in the increasing difference between the goals, purposes, and prejudice of citizens and the decisions of the political system made in their behalf (Carrow, Churchill & Cordes 1998). For lots of scholars, the interests, situations, and actions of politicians are viewed as detached from the beliefs and lives of citizens. Even though regular elections are, according to Beetham (1992), ‘a continuous discipline on the elected to take constant notice of public opinion’ (ibid, p. 47), the dictate that politicians take pleasure from is the fact that citizens have very little influence on political decisions made in their behalf. The core argument of this essay is that in order to justify the diversity of environmental values and the dedication of citizens, the process of decision making should be to improve and endorse democratic participation. In order to do this, this essay will compare and contrast the relationship of environmental values and democracy in four countries, namely, The United States, Great Britain, Russia, and China: the former two countries being highly democratic while the latter two being less democratic. As reported by the Brundtland Commission, an environmental right should state that “all human beings have the fundamental right to an environment adequate for their health and well being” (Smith 2003, 104). Even though in the recent decade many countries, such as the four countries abovementioned, have included environmental values within their constitutions, until quite currently there have been inadequate interests of the environmental values of democracy. This absence of interest is unexpected, because, as say by Robyn Eckersley (1996): “The introduction of environmental rights clearly has the potential to alter radically the established framework of decision making in favor of the environment” (ibid, p. 216). Democracy should be concerned with the composition of the constitution, since the effect of rights is experienced all over the legal, political, and moral areas. Several theories have been used for establishing environmental values (Carrow et al. 1998). Eckersley (1996) sums up the environmental challenge to democratic ideas of rights by saying that the democratic explanation of the moral interest of protection and independence from control needs consideration of the physical situations of its use. As argued by Eckersley (1996), “we must accord the same moral priority to the material conditions (including bodily and ecological conditions) that enable that autonomy to be exercised” (ibid, p. 223). Environmental values, however, conflicts with the democracy. Yet, the statements above show that ecological values and particular democratic rights are in fact connected. As stated by Saward (1996), “Rather than being something outside the purview of democratic theory, core environmental concerns are part of it” (ibid, p. 88). The following section will show the connection (or conflict) between environmental values and democracy in four countries, the US, the UK, China, and Russia. Environmental Values and Democracy If one looks at the political guidelines for the environment of the US and the UK, which are highly democratic societies, a particular problem appears as the clearest feature of the political practices, which is shown in their regulations. The problem has its source in knowledge of democracy that respects the involvement of citizens in decision making process to be a must. As shown by this idea, citizens should be given the right to express his/her opinion of and interest with the process of decision making. Citizens are the ultimate and vital authority. The acceptability and authority of political decisions is known, thus, with regard to the level to which the decisions conform to the citizens’ will. This ultimate ideal of democracy has made the process of decision making in the United States to continue in behalf of the citizens and by involving the citizens to a rare degree. This, yet, has effects that harmfully affect the process of solving problems (Smith 2003). It ignores that, actually, not everybody can become involved because s/he does not have the needed resources to do it. Also, where an information given to the citizens happen, an effective procedure is not really that assured. Where citizens have the chance to become involved, the decision making process becomes unbearable. Interests of the citizens are valued and their representatives have the power to interrupt or stop the process of decision making (Smith 2003). This problem is never final however. It is not present in the United Kingdom because legitimacy there is not created by information to citizens but instead of updated people cooperating on an obviously neutral issue (Much, Lahusen, Kurth, Borgards, Stark & Jauss 2001). The manner in which an issue like ecological problem, like air pollution, is answered and the problems that appear are hence somewhat depends on cultural situations and are not similar in each country. For example, as shown in the chart, the people of the United States do not believe that increase in taxes will prevent environmental pollution, while people of China think the opposite. However, as shown in the chart, the people of China, although they believe that taxes could lessen environmental pollution, do not think that the government should reduce environmental pollution. These differences may be attributed to differences in democratic principles between the United States and China. This issue will be explored later. The obvious characteristics of the political control of ecological threats in the UK and its distinct forms of democracy in contrast to those in the US are particularly suitable for showing how culture can justify the appearance of current political institutions. In the face of the distinctiveness of the trends of political control in the UK, descriptive factors that do not inquire about the particular cultural aspects of the relationship between society and politics seem to be inadequate from the beginning (Munch et al. 2001). Particularly with the case of Great Britain, it can be proven that political culture, which contains the entire beliefs, values, and ideals and their important applications in the actions and decisions of the actors, serve as a foundation for the process of policymaking that balances and lessens conflict, on the one hand, but can become a major problem for sustaining status quo on the other hand (Munch et al. 2001). A study of the regulation patterns, be it legitimate ideals and norms or the actions of the actors, shows a very stable and historically uniform political process structure in Great Britain (Carrow et al. 1998). Shallow studies have a tendency to compare this stability with stagnancy and do not view that the traditional stability is founded on change between the immobility and inventive stability (Carrow et al. 1998). The absence of protections and standards in the political system of Great Britain seems hard to believe to the United States, where traditional ideals, constitutional jurisdiction, and positivistic law indicate a more logical use of political authority (Munch et al. 2001). Sayings about the out-of-date English and continuous biases about ‘Europe’s dirty man’ (Carrow et al. 1998, 100) darken the reality that in Great Britain there existed and remains uneven stages where in the policy circle of the political ‘environment’ has created new kinds of societal solution to ecological threats, which also, in an international study acquire the rank of innovations. Great Britain, currently is in this kind of stage again: The democratic plan of ‘integrated monitoring for environmental protection’ (Carrow et al. 1998, 100), current programs like the ‘eco-auditing’ that change the economic rationale, and a consciousness change in society that is shown, for example, in the large population of environmental groups in comparison to other European countries have begun a continuous change process (Munch et al. 2001). In the face of this major transformation, it can be surprising that the essential means and values of operations of Great Britain’s political regulation remain stable. As shown in the illustration, all the four countries values environmental rights more than the economy. Even the non-democratic countries, China and Russia, put environmental regulations on top of economic ones. This shows that in terms of choice between environment and economy, there is no difference between democratic and non-democratic countries. Environmental issues have become an actual priority for the government of China, not because legislators have understood that they bear a significant cost in flooding, cleanup, health and desertification. The State Environmental Protection Administration, in 1998, was promoted to the status of Ministry in an attempt to grant it more supervision power, and there has been a substantial growth in the authorities of environmental groups to implement the firm environmental guidelines that are on document (Day 2005). Even though resources for implementation stay inadequate and violations common, the government of China appears certain to transform the image of the country for being one of the world’s most polluted. As shown in the pie graph, Chinese citizens are more willing to contribute to the protection of environment than American citizens are. This finding may imply that deliberation about the environment is more intense in China than the US, which is quite unreasonable considering the fact that the US is a premier democratic society. In another hopeful event, in spite of government anxiety about the civil society groups, quasi-nongovernmental organizations, environmental nongovernmental organizations, and activist and student ecological groups are beginning to increase (Day 2005). These organizations usually communicate information and carry out collaborative programs with foreign environmental nongovernmental organizations and obtain assistance from Western organizations like WWF-Beijing (Day 2005). In other words, if the leaders of China can envision their path toward relaxing regulations on citizen involvement, a government will still has to develop that is ecologically reliable and receptive, supported by public consciousness of environment concerns for effective environmental implementation (Smith 2003). Irrespective of the assumptions of some thinkers who think that strict regimes should be better in regulating environment problems than democratic countries, like US and the UK, in China, authoritarian controls have not so far been effective in commanding considerably better attitude towards the environment. Considerable public support for responsible environmental practices should arise from a strong foundation of reason, for environmental knowledge has a major function in promoting action and forming environmental values. As have been witnessed by the world, Mao thoroughly controlled scientific practice and scholars, replacing scientific observations regarding objective restrictions with his own motives and intentions, according to his idea of the abilities of an organized society (Day 2005). Environmental knowledge and critical ecological literacy are currently important, but a small number of average Chinese citizens know the toxic chemicals, ecological system, watersheds, that they their senses cannot detect, not to include the effects of global dilemmas such as climate change (Day 2005). The environmental future of China hence depends partly on its capacity to include an environmental course into the curriculum and share important scientific facts to its people. Opportunely, teachers and government authorities know this, and they have developed initiatives to include environmental courses into the curriculum (Smith 2003). Chinese students are more aware or knowledgeable of the basic environmental issues than several of their counterparts in the US and Great Britain, and quite open to learning how NGOs have advanced environmental values and guidelines all over the world (Smith 2003). Similarly, the presence of waste, contamination, water, nuclear, gas, and oil pollution in Russia is shocking, with possible considerable effects on Russian and international ecological concerns, like harms to human health, industrial pollution, climate change, and ozone depletion (Massa & Tynkkynen 2001). In spite of these great problems of the Russia to efficiently deal with diverse problems in the environment, the environmental past Russia and its common determination in the face of problems and persistent love of the land, provided positive vision to the ecological condition of Russia (Massa & Tynkkynen 2001). The growing environmental nongovernmental circle of Russia is one of the greatest developments regarding this. What is essential to counteract the environmental issues of a country is not actually democracy, but an enhanced sense of dedication and stress on changes within Russia, and satisfying the resource supports from the global community (Carrow et al. 1998). Ecological change can be attained, but it should be prepared and implemented by efficient and responsible legislators in Russia. Moreover, more sustainability-focused governmental, economic, and legal systems have to be embedded into the core of Russia (Massa & Tynkkynen 2001) in order to generate the required developments from the present condition. Conclusions As shown in the discussion and in the illustrations, environmental values are not necessarily a component of democratic practice. In the United States and Great Britain, two highly democratic societies, the regard for environmental wellbeing is high but their citizens remain uninformed of the basic environmental issues and the role of the government in resolving these ecological problems. Chinese and Russian people, on the other hand, which are two non-democratic societies, are highly informed of these fundamental ecological problems. In fact, China and Russia shows more exercise of deliberative democracy than the US and Great Britain. The increasing number of nongovernmental organizations in China and Russia testifies to that fact. In terms of citizen involvement, it appears that Americans are not willing to contribute or take part in the protection of the environment, which is the opposite for Chinese citizens who are eager to give a portion of their income for the environment. This difference may be explained by the intensity of information sharing or deliberation discussed above. This paper has ranged across diverse possible institutional changes and reorganization that may improve democratic deliberation and the concern for environmental values within the process of decision making. The objective was not to present a sole design for environmental democratization, but was more exploratory. Certainly, institutional blueprint includes complicated decisions about the important context and the possible trade-offs that might be needed between institutional outcomes like effectiveness, representation, and involvement. Hence, there is no sole framework of the political system that will be appropriate in all contexts. What is needed is vision and receptiveness to situations in creating possible reforms, and an eagerness to try and acquire inspiration from national successes. The final point of this paper constructs positive recommendations as to how political systems may be reformed to permit better democratic deliberation, which is exactly the problem of the US and the UK. Such actions would cultivate process of decision making that is more receptive to environmental values. Democracy cannot assure the consideration of environmental values, but it can offer a perfect setting within which various environmental values can be expressed and regarded in the processes of decision-making. Political decisions and outlooks that genuinely show the diversity of environmental values may start to appear. References Beetham, D. “Liberal Democracy and the Limits of Democratization,” Prospects for Democracy: Political Studies Special Issue 40 (1992): 40-53. Carrow, M., R. Churchill, & J. Cordes, J. Democracy, Social Values and Public Policy. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1998. Day, K. China’s Environment and the Challenge of Sustainable Development. New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2005. Eckersley, R. “Greening Liberal Democracy: The Rights Discourse Revisited”, In B. Doherty & M. De Geus (eds) Democracy and Green Political Thought. London: Routledge, 1996. Massa, I. & Tynkkynen, V. The Struggle for Russian Environmental Policy. Kikimora, 2001. Munch, R., C. Lahusen, M. Kurth, C. Borgards, C. Stark, & C. Jauss. Democracy at Work: A Comparative Sociology of Environmental Regulation in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the United States. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001. Saward, M. “Must Democrats be Environmentalists?”, In B. Doherty & M. De Geus (eds) Democracy and Green Political Thought. London: Routledge, 1996. Smith, G. Deliberative Democracy and the Environment. New York: Routledge, 2003. Read More