It is not democracy, but politics that is the problem in arriving at sound common decisions in ecological matters, as in many others. Politics, democratic or not, is a matter of generalised power-trading. Every political player has some say over many outcomes, only a few of which have a direct effect on his or her welfare. The political game consists largely in power-trading, selling one's power in matters to which one is relatively indifferent in order to secure the exercise of power in one's favour in more 'important' contexts. In this game, ecological considerations inevitably fare badly in most cases. Even where there is agreement about the need to act, there is no agreement about who is to bear the costs. In ordinary discourse we usually call a decision 'political' to the extent that it is the result of power-trading. The basic principle of sound democracy is that decisions on any matter should be made only by agents who are genuinely representative of those who are directly and materially affected by those decisions. This involves a functional decentralisation of power to specialised authorities, not necessarily local communities, but a network of communities of interest. One crucial question then is, how to represent the interests of those who cannot speak for themselves? Suggestions are offered about appropriate selection procedures. Another is, how to finance an ecologically and democratically sound system? The answer lies in charging heavily for the use of land and natural resources. Finally, the practical questions are always very specific ones. In order to act well we do not need to share the same ecological vision, much less to enforce it by massive political action, but only to empower those who bear the consequences of particular actions and failures to act.
Tijdschrift beschrijving