Environmental Democracy: The Missing Agenda
A review of the current state of environmental politics, with its
multitude of crises and grim projections, shows one issue at the core:
the crisis of democracy. In British Columbia, an unsustainable assault
on the forests now threatens domestic watersheds throughout the province.
Policy makers, here as elsewhere in North America and the world, continue
to push the corporate agenda, deaf to majority opposition voiced at
the local level.
Behind the scenes of daily destruction, legislation favoring sustainable
ecosystems is quietly blocked or overriden. The government offers public
input processes that are nothing more than public relations shams, where
concerned citizens are invited to view "development" plans,
or wooed into conference rooms to hear assurances from panels of bureaucrats
and hired experts. The result, for participants in such processes everywhere,
is worse than the mere sense of having negliglible effect: it is being
numbed by an oppressive powerlessness.
Grassroots resistance movements are having little effect with direct
action tactics, because these movements have been marginalized in the
public mind, thanks to their portrayal as a media circus, or worse,
as acts of "eco-terrorism." The result is swift "justice"
by the police and court system, with charges ranging from criminal mischief
or civil liability, to contempt of court for challenging injunctions
illegally made against the public at large (as in B.C.'s Clayoquot trials).
Arrests can number in the hundreds or thousands, and still the general
public is muted. Why? Because we are disenfranchised by a political
system which is heavily weighted to favor corporate and industrial interests.
We have come to expect that our ecological concerns, regardless of their
scientific underpinnings, will be swept aside, and that our democratic
initiatives will be ignored. The long-term public good is not even "on
the table" for discussion. And so, as long as there is no change
in the dominant structure of power, there appears to be little prospect
for positive change on the environmental issues we debate so passionately.
The solution for this crisis might be found, however, in a political
movement that can transform our fundamental frustration into a vision
for change.
Can the Green parties hope to change the balance of power in the political
system through their participation in it? Perhaps, if the focus on "environmental
democracy" were identified and articulated as a prime target. Present
Green party policies, however, downplay this most crucial issue in favor
of the usual list of specific environmental crises and proposed remedies.
A great many voters, cutting across all party lines, desire local
control and use over resources. This focus on the economic health of
local communities was promised in the disastrous "land-use planning
strategies" across B.C. However, all these plans are really made
at the expense of environmental interests, of true economic sustainability,
and of local decision-making. What about communities who choose to engage
in economic activities that do not depend on the continued mis-"use
of local resources"?
It's conceivable that the best option for us (the public), at this
late date in political and environmental history, is
to turn the dinosaur of top-down government on its head. To embrace
such a position, a political party needs to trust people to make the
best ecological decisions in their local areas, and to give them the
power to make those decisions. This issue needs to be fleshed out as
an election platform in itself.
What measure of protection might the provincial or national governments
assert over local resource and development initiatives? What protection
can local communities have from the encroachment of outside private
and corporate interests into their local lands? What kinds of international
and intergovernmental cooperation are needed to care for environmental
problems that cross jurisdictional lines? These problems are formidable,
as are the problems outlined on an issue-by-issue basis in the current
platform of the Green Party of Canada. Who has the legitimate right
to make decisions? By default, we Canadians give primary weight to the
historic right of the Crown to pronounce law. However, more recently
the Crown breaches these laws (e.g., B.C. Forest Practices Code) and
gives an unfair advantage to the financial powers to influence the lawmakers--and
public opinion itself, through the media--in their favour. Is there
not another legitimate source of power, in local communities, which
since the era of nation-states has been disenfranchised?
Why not seek a balance of advantages in a new formula of power-sharing?
We offer the following model as an example of a power-sharing arrangement
that would honour local concerns foremost, while concurrently allowing
for the checking influence of larger spheres of influence.
Imagine a series of five concentric circles, with the local Community
at the center. Moving out, we find the level of the Region (or Bioregion),
the Province/State, the Nation, and the Globe. For an appropriate formula
describing the diminishing influence of power, we use the one that governs
nature: the inverse-square rule. This rule applies to such environmental
staples as gravity, heat, and light. As the distance increases, the
intensity of influence diminishes by an inverse of the square of the
distance. This sounds more complicated than it is. The model proposed
here simply uses the number of rings instead of distance. So, the Region,
at ring 2, has an influence of one divided by two squared, or 1/4. The
Province, at ring 3, has an influence of 1/9. To summarize in table
form:
| Concentric Ring |
Locality |
Influence on Decision-making |
|
|
Proportion |
% |
|
1
|
Community |
1/2 |
54 |
|
2
|
Region |
1/4 |
25 |
|
3
|
Province/State |
1/9 |
11 |
|
4
|
Nation |
1/16 |
6 |
|
5
|
Globe |
1/25 |
4 |
Note that the communities' power share (54%) is what is left after
the other shares are subtracted from 100%. What could be more natural,
as a way of determining proper "spheres of influence," than
universal physical laws of nature?
As a further way of giving value to participation at all levels, the
above percentages could be broken down to reflect proportional opinion
at each level. So when a community is divided on an issue, the minority
positons could still carry their portion of the Community Level's 54%
into the total tally. On a global issue, such as ozone depletion, the
overall formula could be reversed to give the largest share of power
(54%) to the global community.
There is more that can be added to the model to make it effective:
new and modified decision making structures, voting mechanisms, determination
and coordination of overlapping interests and inputs. The effort would
be well spent because, once in place, a proper decision-making model
would let the nested levels of concern take care of the weight of policy-making
that currently occupies political parties. That current effort is now
wasted using nebulous terms of accountability, legitimacy, and environmental
sustainability, when, in the end, the shots are really being called
by remote political, financial and industrial interests that are leading
human societies to suicide.
The really basic question still needing answers is, how can we make
the vision of local decision-making a reality? Green Parties may eventually
gain public favour with their advocacy of environmental solutions. We
would suggest that an even larger portion of public support is available
immediately: that oppressed part of all of us which would love to be
able to say, for once: "My voice matters. The wishes of my community
will be respected in the place where I live".
By Nowick Gray (Kootenay Lake North
Arm Watershed Alliance)
and Rick Zammuto (B.C. Green Party Forest Critic)
RZammuto@aol.com
--April 1997
