(Page 2 of 21) - Paradoxes in Green Democracy authored by Wilson, Harlan.

regulations and by legal enforcement of often undemocratic rights principles. Moreover, many
deliberative ‘green’ democrats instinctively think of democracy in terms of localism and small-
scale associations; yet local, decentralized arrangements, however ‘authentically’ democratic, do
not mesh well with the realities of global capitalism and global environmental impacts, or with
the modern bureaucratic state. Conversely, many social-science approaches to environmental
'problem-solving', notably those coming from environmental and resource economics, are
indifferent or hostile to any form of collective action. Finally, the discourses and style of green
politics can be paternalistic.

Before going further, some elementary distinctions about democracy are in order,

because many of the propositions discussed here depend upon what kind of democracy we are
talking about. The procedural/substantive distinction has already been mentioned. To it we
might add John Dryzek's conception of "pragmatic democracy," democracy as a means of
solving problems. [Dryzek, 2005, 99ff] Democracy may be, in Benjamin Barber's terms,
"strong" (i.e. participatory, especially deliberative) or "thin" (i.e. representative or interest-group
pluralist) [Barber, 1984]. We may define democracy in terms of its purposes: to aggregate
votes or interests, to educate, to empower, etc. (Generally strong democracy is identified with
the latter three functions). Finally, we may think of democracy as sited inside the state, as is
customary in the 'tradition' of political theory; or we may instead think of democracy as taking
place outside (directed toward, directed against, or simply separate from) the state. In thinking
about the conditions for democracy, it is a good idea to have at least these distinctions in mind,
though it isn't the purpose of this essay to provide exhaustive taxonomies.

Greenery also contains contested categories. The terms "green," "environmental,"

"ecological", "sustainable" mean different things to different people; indeed each word has
contested meanings. I will, however, not distinguish very carefully between them. (I confess to
a preference to letting the term 'ecological' remain a technical biological signifier, but it has
seeped irreversibly into much larger social contexts, especially radical politics.) Arne Naess'
famous distinction between "deep" and "shallow" ecology can be useful [Naess, 1998]. John M.
Meyer has proposed a contrast that cuts through Naess' distinction, namely between "broad" and
"narrow" ecology or environmentalism (in terms of political vision, mainly) [Meyer, 2005]. One
may think of radical ecology vs. reform environmentalism in either or both ways. I will use the
color "brown" to refer to anti-environmentalist ideologies and practices. And I hope this short
conceptual discussion is adequate for now.

No matter how one slices up green or environmental discourses, certain characteristics of

environmental problems render them different from other sorts of political problems. These
characteristics pose significant challenges for democracy, especially the stronger varieties,
especially democracy within the state. Namely: a) environmental problems are urgent (they
exist in time and not only in space); b) environmental problems are often, though not always,
irreversible; c) they are extremely complex, especially when the human dimensions of politics
and management are factored in; d) they are often invisible and remote from the ordinary
experiences of people; e) their extent is often uncertain, because we experience events rather
than patterns, and because the science has become so politicized. One could discuss at length
each of these challenges to 'green democracy,' though each will be only referred to rather than
discussed extensively in the rest of the paper.

The basic theses of this paper are the following: