Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:03:30.993Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Democratic Representation, Environmental Justice and Future People

from Part III - Perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 March 2023

By
Matthias Fritsch
Edited by
Sandy Lamalle  and
Peter Stoett
Sandy Lamalle
Affiliation:
Concordia University, Montréal
Peter Stoett
Affiliation:
Ontario Tech University
Get access

Summary

In the context of current environmental crises, which threaten to seriously harm living conditions for future generations, liberal–capitalist democracies have been accused of inherent short-termism, that is, of favouring the currently living at the expense of mid- to long-term sustainability. This chapter reviews some of the reasons for this short-termism as well as proposals as to how best to represent future people in today’s democratic decision-making. It then presents some ideas of the author as to how to reconceive the idea of democracy and the responsibilities of citizenship in the face of increasing obligations to sustain both the environment and democratic institutions for future people. The chapter argues that taking turns between governing and governed is a key dimension of democracy, and that it implies in-principle consent to others governing after our turn, including future generations. Thus, future people must be better represented than they generally are today, in particular when democratic institutions find themselves squeezed between an overburdened environment in which they are embedded, and a fast-paced and short-termist globalising economy.

Keywords

democratic representationenvironmental governancetaking turnsshort-termismpresentismfuture generationsintergenerational politicstheories of justiceseventh-generation principle
Type
Chapter
Information
Representations and Rights of the Environment , pp. 310 - 333
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aristotle (1984). ‘Nicomachean ethics’; ‘Politics’. In Barnes, Jonathan et al. (eds.), The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1729–867; 1986–2129.Google Scholar
Barry, B. (1989). Theories of Justice: A Treatise on Social Justice. Berkeley: University of California Press, I.Google Scholar
Bidadanure, J. (2016). Youth quotas, diversity, and long-termism: Can young people act as proxies for future generations? In Gonzalez-Ricoy, I. and Gosseries, A. (eds.), Institutions for Future Generations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 266.Google Scholar
Birnbacher, D. (1988). Verantwortung für zukünftige Generationen. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
Boston, J. and Lempp, F. (2011). Climate change: Explaining and solving the mismatch between scientific urgency and political inertia. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 24(8): 1000–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J. and Foley, D. K. (2016). A world climate bank. In Gonzalez-Ricoy, I. and Gosseries, A. (eds.), Institutions for Future Generations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 156–69.Google Scholar
Brumlik, M. (2004). Advokatorische Ethik: Zur Legitimation pädagogischer Eingriffe. Berlin: Philo.Google Scholar
Caney, S. (2016). Political institutions for the future: A five-fold package. In Gonzalez-Ricoy, I. and Gosseries, A. (eds.), Institutions for Future Generations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 135–55.Google Scholar
Chakrabarty, D. (2017). The politics of climate change is more than the politics of capitalism. Theory, Culture & Society 34(2–3): 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, W. (2002). Democracy and time. In Neuropolitics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 140–75.Google Scholar
Connolly, W. (2011). Capital Flows, Sovereign Decisions, and World Resonance Machines: A World of Becoming. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordelli, C. and Reich, R. (2016). Philanthropy and intergenerational justice. In Gonzalez-Ricoy, I. and Gosseries, A. (eds.), Institutions for Future Generations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 228–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derrida, J. (2005). Rogues, Pascale-Anne Brault and Michael Naas (trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Dobson, A. (1996). Representative democracy and the environment. In Lafferty, William M. and Meadowcroft, James (eds.), Democracy and the Environment: Problems and Prospects. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 124–39.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. (1995). Political and ecological communication. Environmental Politics 4(4): 13–30.Google Scholar
Eckersley, R. (2000). Deliberative democracy, ecological representation and risk: Towards a democracy of all affected. In Saward, M. (ed.), Democratic Innovation: Deliberation, Representation and Association. London: Routledge, 117–32.Google Scholar
Ekeli, K. S. (2005). Giving a voice to posterity: Deliberative democracy and representation of future people. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18: 429–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontana, B., Nederman, C. J. and Remer, G. (eds.) (2004). Talking Democracy: Historical Perspectives on Rhetoric and Democracy. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Fritsch, M. (2011). Taking turns: Democracy to come and intergenerational justice. Derrida Today 4(2): 148–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritsch, M. (2013). Europe’s constitution for the unborn. In Czajka, A. and Isyar, B. (eds.), Europe after Derrida. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 80–94.Google Scholar
Fritsch, M. (2018). Taking Turns with the Earth: Phenomenology, Deconstruction, and Intergenerational Justice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gesang, B. (2015). Is democracy an obstacle to ecological change? In Birnbacher, D and Thorseth, M (eds.), The Politics of Sustainability. Philosophical Perspectives, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gardiner, Stephen (2011). A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Ricoy, I. and Gosseries, A. (2016). Designing institutions for future generations: An introduction. In Gonzalez-Ricoy, I. and Gosseries, A. (eds.), Institutions for Future Generations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–23.Google Scholar
Gosseries, A. (2008). On future generations’ future rights. Journal of Political Philosophy 16(4): 446–74, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2008.00323.xGoogle Scholar
Gosseries, A. (2016). Generational sovereignty. In Gonzalez-Ricoy, I. and Gosseries, A. (eds.), Institutions for Future Generations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 98–116.Google Scholar
Gutmann, A. and Thompson, D. (2004). Why Deliberative Democracy?. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Häberle, P. (2005). A constitutional law for future generations: The ‘other’ form of the social contract. Generation Contract Intergenerational Justice Review 3: 28.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1984–85). The Theory of Communicative Action (2 vols.). Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1990). Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Lenhardt, C. and Nicholsen Weber, S. (trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1994). Three normative models of democracy. Constellations 1(1): 1–10.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Rehg, W.. (trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habib, A. (2013). Sharing the earth: Sustainability and the currency of inter-generational environmental justice. Environmental Values 22(6): 751–64.Google Scholar
Hansen, M. H. (2006). Polis: An Introduction to the Ancient Greek City-State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859): 1243–48.Google Scholar
Hauser, O. P., Rand, D. G., Peysakhovich, A and Nowak, M. A (2014). Cooperating with the future. Nature 511(7508): 220–23.Google Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto (2012). Turn allocation and turn sharing. In Sidnell, Jack and Stivers, Tanya (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 167–90.Google Scholar
Heath, J. (2014). Rebooting discourse ethics. Philosophy & Social Criticism 40(9): 829–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyward, C. (2008). Can the all-affected principle include future persons? Green deliberative democracy and the non-identity problem. Environmental Politics 17(4): 625–43.Google Scholar
Horkheimer, M. (1974). Eclipse of Reason. London: Seabury Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Thomas (1904). The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Federal ed. New York: Putnam’s (1904–5). Vol. 6. Chapter: To James Madison, http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/803/86733/1991883Google Scholar
Jensen, K. K. (2015). Future generations in democracy: Representation or consideration? Jurisprudence 6(3): 535–48.Google Scholar
Jessop, B. (2009). The spatiotemporal dynamics of globalizing capital and their impact on state power and democracy. In Rosa, H. and Scheuerman, W. E. (eds.), High-Speed Society: Social Acceleration, Power, and Modernity. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 135–58.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. F. (2007). Discursive democracy in the trans-generational context. Contemporary Political Theory 6(1): 67–85.Google Scholar
Jonas, H. (1986). The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of Ethics for the Technological Age. Jonas, Hans and Herr, David (trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kettner, M. (1992). Diskursethik und Verantwortung für zukünftige Generationen. In Fauser, P. et al. (eds.), Verantwortung (Friedrich Jahresheft X). Seelze: Friedrich, 124–27.Google Scholar
King, A. and Crewe, I. (2014). The Blunders of Our Governments. London: Oneworld.Google Scholar
Klein, N. (2014). This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. Toronto: Knopf Canada.Google Scholar
Ladwig, B. (2009). Moderne Politische Theorie. Schwalbach: Wochenschau.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1991). We Have Never Been Modern. Porter, C. (trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2004). The Politics of Nature. How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. C. Porter (trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lessig, L. (2011). Republic, Lost. New York: Twelve.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C. E. (1982). The market as prison. Journal of Politics 44(2): 324–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, O. (1980). An Iroquois perspective. In Vecsey, C and Venables, R. W. (eds.), American Indian Environments: Ecological Issues in Native American History. New York: Syracuse University Press, 171–74.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, C. and Sorial, S. (2011). The limits of the public sphere: The advocacy of violence. Critical Horizons 12(2): 165–88.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, M. K. (2016a). Institutional design and sources of short-termism. In Gonzalez-Ricoy, I. and Gosseries, A. (eds.), Institutions for Future Generations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 24–48.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, M. K. (2016b). A general-purpose, randomly selected chamber. In Gonzalez-Ricoy, I. and Gosseries, A. (eds.), Institutions for Future Generations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 282–98.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, J. (2012). On the importance of getting things done. PS: Political Science and Politics 45(1): 1–8.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. (2003 [1859]). On Liberty. Bromwich, David and Kateb, George (eds.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, F. D. Jr. (2013). The rule of reason. In Deslauriers, M. and Destrée, P. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 38–66.Google Scholar
Morrell, M. E. (2018). Listening and deliberation. In Bachtiger, A, Dryzek, J., Mansbridge, J. and Warren, M. E. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, G. (1997). Constitution of the Iroquois Confederacy, https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/MOD/iroquois.aspGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J. and McChesney, R. W. (2013). Dollarocracy: How the Money and Media Election Complex Is Destroying America. New York: Nation Books.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Parijs, P. (1998). The disfranchisement of the elderly, and other attempts to secure intergenerational justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs 27(4): 292–333.Google Scholar
Ott, K. (2008a). Diskursethik und die Grundzüge bioethischer Diskurse. In Brand, C, Engels, E. M., Ferrari, A. and Kovàcs, L.(eds.), Wie funktioniert Bioethik. Paderborn: Mentis, 61–95.Google Scholar
Ott, K. (2008b). Ethik und Diskurs. In Wetz, F. J., Steenblock, V. and Siebert, J (eds.), Kolleg Praktische Philosophie. Stuttgart: Reclam, 111–52.Google Scholar
Paehlke, R. C. (1989). Environmentalism and the Future of Progressive Politics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Przeworski, A. (2010). Democracy and the Limits of Self-Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Przeworski, A. and Wallerstein, M. (1988). Structural dependence of the state on capital. American Political Science Review 82: 11–29.Google Scholar
Putterman, L. (2014). Behavioural economics: A caring majority secures the future. Nature 511: 165–66.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. (1993). Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
van Reybrouck, D. (2016). Against Elections: The Case for Democracy. London: Bodley Head.Google Scholar
Rosa, H. (2010). Alienation and Acceleration: Towards a Critical Theory of Late-Modern Temporality. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Rosa, H. (2013). Weltbeziehungen im Zeitalter der Beschleunigung: Umrisse einer neuen Gesellschaftskritik. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Rosa, H. and Scheuerman, W. E. (eds.) (2009). High-Speed Society: Social Acceleration, Power, and Modernity. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Sandberg, J. (2016). Pension funds, future generations, and fiduciary duty. In Gonzalez-Ricoy, I. and Gosseries, A. (eds.), Institutions for Future Generations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 197–213.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. (1998). What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schecter, D. (2010). The Critique of Instrumental Reason from Weber to Habermas. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Scheuerman, W. (2004). Liberal Democracy and the Social Acceleration of Time. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Schmitter, P. C. (2000). How to Democratize the European Union … And Why Bother? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Shearman, D. and Smith, J. W. (2007). The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy. London: Praeger.Google Scholar
Shoham, S. and Lamay, N. (2006). Commission for future generations in the Knesset: Lessons learnt. In Tremmel, J. C. (ed.), Handbook of Intergenerational Justice. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 244–81.Google Scholar
Stiegler, B. (2018). The Neganthropocene. Ross, D. (trans.). London: Open Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Szabó, M. (2016). A common heritage fund for future generations. In Gonzalez-Ricoy, I. and Gosseries, A. (eds.), Institutions for Future Generations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 385–99.Google Scholar
Thompson, D. F. (2016). Democratic trusteeship: Institutions to protect the future of the democratic process. In Gonzalez-Ricoy, I. and Gosseries, A. (eds.), Institutions for Future Generations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 184–97.Google Scholar
Thorseth, M. (2015). Limitations to democratic governance of natural resources. In Birnbacher, D. and Thorseth, M. (eds.), The Politics of Sustainability. Philosophical Perspectives. London: Routledge, 17ff.Google Scholar
Wallimann-Helmer, I. (2015). The liberal tragedy of the commons: The deficiency of democracy in a changing climate. In Birnbacher, D. and Thorseth, M. (eds.), The Politics of Sustainability: Philosophical Perspectives. London: Routledge, 20–35.Google Scholar
Zingano, M. (2013). Natural, ethical, and political justice. In Deslauriers, M. and Destrée, P. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 199–222.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×