Reading Response #4

In Chapter 7 of The Politics of the Earth, “Environmentally Benign Growth”, John Dryzek makes an interesting comparison between the discourse of sustainable development and democracy. Both generally seem to be, at least in official international affairs rhetoric, respectively, the prevalent paradigm for environmentalism and politics. Also, in Dryzek’s view, both are broad and open-ended discourses that lend themselves to a variety of definitions and interpretations (147). What is more, sustainable development and democracy are both “largely about social learning, involving decentralized, exploratory, and variable approaches to its pursuit”, emphasizing the importance of the role of civil societies (158). Looking at these parallels, I would like to briefly examine the challenges that they suggest for the discourse of sustainable development.

On the problematic consequences of the parallels between sustainable development and democracy, a first issue can be seen in their vulnerability to be shaped and manipulated to respond to particular interests masked by declarations of public interest. It can be cynically—but also reasonably—said that politicians and businesses operate under the constant restraint of public relations. For a politician to publicly dismiss democracy is equivalent to career suicide in most of the contemporary world. Similarly, openly rejecting the appealing principles of sustainable development would not constitute sound business strategy. As Dryzek himself colorfully observes, “corporations have clambered on board the bandwagon to show that business too can play constructive roles” (156). The question is, can it really be expected that firms will abandon their tried-and-true neoclassical business practices in exchange of good PR? I find it highly unlikely. What can be expected—as is happening already—is that their publicity spots will contain more references to their presumably greener, eco-friendlier products.

From a global perspective, secondly, is sustainability compatible with an international political economy dominated by the tenets of market liberalism? Democracy is part of the historical and social offspring of capitalism, and the same could be said of sustainable development, inasmuch as it does not challenge capitalism, but actually aims at following its principle of continued growth (146). Moreover, democracy and sustainable development are both undermined by capitalism. Democracy (or capitalism), however, seems to have bought itself more time through the compromise of the welfare state.

Could a similar environmental compromise be achieved in the case of sustainable development? Perhaps, but, as James Speth notes in Red Sky at Morning, environmental challenges not only require concerted international action in most cases (which in itself multiplies the difficulties in achieving solutions), but they are also more complex, harder to perceive, and more commonly relegated to the future (100). The social and economic problems that the welfare compromise has somewhat addressed, on the other hand, did not have to add those difficulties to the already complicated realm of domestic politics. Speth further underscores the fact that solving environmental problems—as it would certainly be the case in the framework of sustainable development—requires interference in the market (113). While the market was wise enough to realize that the costs of oppression where larger than those of concession in the case of welfare democracy, it seems unlikely to be so in the case of sustainable development.