- Email: [email protected]
Toward governance for future generations
Pergamon
Futures, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 277–292, 1998 1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0016–3287/98 $19.00 + 0.00
PII: S0016–3287(98)00036-6
TOWARD GOVERNANCE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS How do we change course? Kjell Dahle In 1987, the UN World Commission on Environment and Development—perhaps better known as the Brundtland Commission—concluded that our present societal course is irresponsible toward future generations. Ten years later, we have hardly come closer to a solution of our planet’s long-range problems. But how do we change the course? Are there viable pathways that can take us from the present stalemate to a society that cares for future generations? The bottleneck is not a lack of good proposals for approaching sustainability. It is rather the lack of strength to implement them. Discussions about strategies and motors of social change have very often been absent on the ‘green’ agenda, but exceptions do exist. This article will present and analyse main strategic profiles within an expanding flora of literature about sustainability. 1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Opinion polls show a widespread belief that if things continue the way they are now, the result will eventually be a social or ecological collapse. Concerned scientists issue similar warnings. The destiny of our planet may very well be in the hands of the present generations. One choice is going on like nothing, feeling obligations only toward ourselves and people living here and now. This is the kind of attitude which Katsuhiko Yazaki calls ‘nowism’.1 Another choice is to care for the well-being of future generations, thus changing today’s course. This last option means leaving the usual short-sighted realm of day-to-day politics,
Kjell Dahle holds a graduate degree in political science from the University of Oslo. He works as head of project in the Ideas Bank Foundation, P.O. Box 2126, Gru¨nerløkka, N-0505 Oslo, Norway. (Tel.: 47-22206947 or 22809150; e-mail: [email protected]).
277
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
trying to develop policies that look beyond the next election and beyond immediate options in the global market. Instead of remaining mainly present-oriented, governance should become more future-oriented.
Governance and government ‘Governance’ used to be considered more or less synonymous with ‘government’. In a global context, the term was primarily associated with intergovernmental relationships. This has now changed, as stated by for instance by the Commission on Global Governance.2 This Commission emphasises that not only governments and intergovernmental institutions, but also non-governmental organisations (NGOs), citizens’ movements, transnational corporations, academia, and the mass media are involved in global governance.3 To the Commission, ‘governance’ is thus much more than ‘government’. I find this approach fruitful, since it includes the whole scope of actors that have obligations toward future generations. The shift to a more future-oriented governance is much too important a task to be handed over to governments alone. There is often a tendency, not at least among political scientists, to ignore or underestimate the impact of business on governance. I think we should break with this habit, while we also highlight and integrate the role of the growing civil society in the governance of our planet. Having such thoughts, I very much agree with a conclusion from one of the groups at a symposium in Honolulu in 1996 on Creating Future-Oriented Governance.4 This group claimed that governance is what we all do when we take responsibility.
Sustainability Future-oriented governance implies meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This is just how the Brundtland Commission defined ‘sustainable development’.5 To me, creating governance for future generations is therefore similar to approaching a sustainable society. The term ‘sustainability’ has been used and misused by a multitude of individuals, groups and vested interests. To many people, this term has therefore lost its value. I do not agree. Any similar label that managed to break into the public eye, would suffer the same fate. And how much use is there to terms which ‘purists’ can keep for themselves? We must, of course, watch out for ‘sustainable’ labels expressing disguised selfishness, in business as well as in politics. On the other hand, the problem should not be made bigger than it is. As long as the intention is caring for future generations, ‘sustainability’ is a much less ambiguous word in practice than in academic-philosophical discourses. I find the term most suitable for the purpose of labelling the kind of society we should try to approach for the sake of future generations. At least I do not see any better alternative. So let us then leave philology, and approach a much more interesting question: how can we succeed with our transformational efforts?
278
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
Getting from here to there There is no lack of studies describing the weaknesses of the present social order, or discussing the main challenges to future human survival. There is also no lack of analyses concluding (like the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992) with the necessity of a transition to a sustainable society that can secure the well-being of future generations. Less emphasis has been put on the question of finding viable pathways that can take us from where we are to where we want to be. Discussions about strategies and motors of social change are very often absent from the ‘green’ agenda.6,7 Green thinkers normally spend much time on examining what is wrong, some time on sketching theoretical alternatives and hardly any time at all on asking how these alternatives can be carried out in practice. This is a puzzle, given the enormous task of having the whole global community take a new line. The bottleneck is not a lack of good proposals for approaching sustainability, but rather a lack of strength to implement them. Those who are committed, and try to practice as they preach, very often feel like Sisyphus. Or they run their heads straight against a brick wall. I think we should become more engaged in asking what kind of strategies that can provide us the necessary strength to realise a shift to a sustainable society. Although most green thinkers are silent about this, exceptions do exist. This gives a basis for discussing different main strategies that may be applied for a transition. In this article I will analyse different approaches to the subject of finding a pathway taking us from where we are to a sustainable society.8 Three vital strategic questions will steer my analysis: 쐌 Is it possible to find the solutions within the framework of existing political and economic institutions, or will different obstacles make it impossible to break through without a new social order? 쐌 Is a new course mainly to be brought about from above (initiated by a political and economic executive elite) or from below (through new values, lifestyles and structures, believing in the power of the example)? 쐌 Can we approach our goals now, or is a new course impossible until an ecological or social collapse creates a foundation for more future-oriented thinking? Our answers to these theoretical questions are directive for what kind of practical action that makes sense if we want to approach a sustainable society. Different strategic viewpoints imply different choices of arenas, different key actors and different time tables. Rather than construing theoretical combinations of answers to the three questions, I have been searching for different profiles in the expanding flora of literature about sustainability. My intention is to present a broadest possible fan of reflected answers to the question of how to approach a sustainable society. Core assumptions of five alternative profiles are outlined in Table 1. The construction of such ‘ideal types’ is, of course, difficult. This is not only due to the complexity of the questions involved, but also to the lack of a thorough discourse on strategies for a shift to a sustainable society. Although the five profiles are mutually exclusive as ideal types, things are more ambiguous when it comes to thinkers and writers of real flesh and blood. Some strategists are situated in the borderland between different categories, even changing positions as their hopes and beliefs fluctuate over time.9
279
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
TABLE 1. FIVE ALTERNATIVE PATHS FOR A TRANSITION
Reformists Impatient Revolutionaries Patient Revolutionaries Grassroots Fighters Multifaceted Radicals
Key words
Key actors
Political decisions Revolt Collapse Personal responsibility Diversity
Present power elite A new power elite The well-prepared Activists Everywhere
In addition, choosing a strategy is not only a question of goals, but also of time and place. The starting point of a transition to future-oriented governance is very different in for example Norway, Bulgaria, Japan and Nigeria. This will, of course, influence the choice of strategy for change. The five alternative approaches are still, in principle, the same everywhere. The Reformists Those in favour of this main strategy, do not want any upheaval. The goal—a society that can secure the well-being of future generations—is to be reached through dynamic and efficient decisions taken by the present power elite. The transition should thus mainly be brought about from above, through the institutions of the existing social order. Firmness, resolution and ‘fingerspitzengefu¨hl’ are important keywords for the executive politicians of this most challenging transition period. With the assistance of national and international bureaucracies, these politicians are to balance the vested interests, while at the same time keeping different opposition groups in check. Seen through the eyes of the Reformists, the road to a sustainable society is paved with green taxes and international environmental treaties. Public regulation is, however, not sufficient. A transition will not be possible without a growing ecological awareness and adaptation by dominating market forces as well. Increased public environmental grants are also part of the scenario. Together with technological innovations they are to be important remedies during the process. In addition, one puts one’s trust in the educational system, which should foster positive attitudes to the ecological problematique within future generations. It would be impossible to get everybody within the present power elite to take part in a conversion to future-oriented governance. Some replacements will therefore have to take place within the top layer of society. In certain cases, infusions of fresh blood from the more co-operative of today’s dissidents will probably be imperative as well. The Reformists may differ in their opinions of how drastic measures our leaders should take. A total shift of system is, however, out of the question. The transition is to take place gradually. Step by step, but with a clear built-in tendency, today’s unjustifiable course should be altered in a more future-oriented direction. The present political and economic system will remain stable, though evolving. Paradoxically, even such a strategy presupposes the existence of a pressure from below; that is, outside the dominating institutions. Not to make a new structure emerge, but to give those in power backing for environmental decisions that they otherwise might be to anxious to make. Lobbying and political mobilisation is thus essential, since only an active public opinion can put the necessary pressure on today’s power elite.
280
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
An active opinion presupposes consciousness raising at the grassroots level, but the main point of the consciousness raising is to enable people to send the ‘right’ kind of signals upwards. How we vote at elections is one kind of signal. Green consumption is another way of influencing on top level decisions. Today’s ecological reformism has clear roots in traditional social democratic reformism. The transition to a sustainable society is supposed to be just as ‘gradualistic’, peaceful and almost inevitable, as one earlier used to visualise the transition from capitalism to socialism. The Reformist approach has especially many spokespersons among decision-makers within politics, public administration and business (Table 2). As we have seen, the Reformists see pressure from below as a way of making necessary decisions from above possible. Al Gore is a typical example of this. In his best-seller Earth in the Balance, he claims that no meaningful change can take place ‘until enough citizens who are concerned about the ecological system are willing to speak out and urge their leaders to bring the earth back into balance’.10 Al Gore is not a loner within the inner circles of power. The report of the UN Commission for Environment and Development gathered broad support for similar views, both within politics and business. It was important for the Commission to involve grassroots organisations in the process of promoting sustainable development. On the other hand, their recommendations are ‘carefully’ based on the ‘realities of present institutions’.11 The already mentioned Commission on Global Governance is a third important example of the Reformist approach. Aiming to promote stable, balanced, and sustainable development, they state that governments ‘can be made to initiate change if people demand it’.12 A problem with this approach, is that ordinary people’s responsibility for change is seen as limited. The focus on ‘top-down’ solutions does not encourage the majority to liberate itself from consumer pressure. Another problem is what the proponents of the strategy themselves have called ‘the tyranny of the immediate’. This phrase turned up in a statement by the UN Oslo Conference on Sustainable Development in 1988, called by Prime Minister Brundtland as Commission Chairperson. ‘The tyranny of the immediate’ means all the immediate needs and short-term interests that are powerful obstacles to people who want to work for a sustainable development.13 Probably none feel this kind of conflict between short-term and long-term interests more acutely than visionaries who have the responsibility for daily, executive decisions. After he was elected vice-president, this kind of tyranny has become a vital part of Al Gore’s daily life as well. Reformists do not want sustainable development to collide with competitiveness and market economics. This is a vulnerable point for groups within the power elite who have a far more radical past. Such former radicals have ended up where they are by following Rudi Dutschke’s appeal to German socialist students of the 60’s for ‘a long march through the institutions’. Many of them now feel that they have achieved much. From the outside, it may look quite different. TABLE 2. STRATEGIC PROFILE 1
Reformists
Solution within the existing order? Yes
Top-down or bottomup? Top-down
Transition possible now? Yes
281
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
About 20 years after Dutschke’s famous call, the US veteran of social ecology, Murray Bookchin, claimed that the long march had amounted to little more than adapting to the existing institutions. Without changing their character, and without troubling to create new ones. In this way, thousands of activists were lost within the institutions. ‘They went in—and never came out’.14
The Impatient Revolutionaries Like the Reformists, proponents of this profile think that social change must be brought about from above. But they do not believe that the present system can be reformed. A new elite must come to power as quickly as possible, thus securing more future-oriented governance through new institutions. In order to save the planet, drastic measures have to be taken by this elite. The impatients would have preferred a more democratic process, but do not think that this can be combined with saving the global environment. There is just no time to wait for the majority of the population to agree on the necessary changes. Both political and economic change is needed. On both arenas an enlightened minority will act for the common good, feeling sure that the elite is right whereas the majority grasps things too slowly. In addition, the revolutionary minority may claim to represent the interests of future generations, whereas the majority only represents the greed of people living today. This is an approach which has strong roots within revolutionary Marxism. The parallel to Lenin’s thoughts on the ‘democratic’ dictatorship of the proletariat is clear. The left wing does not, however, have any monopoly on this kind of thought. Anti-capitalism does not have to be red (here red-green), it can also be brown (here brown-green). One ¨ bermenschen’ should govern may be aware of the eco-crisis, and conclude that some ‘U to the advantage of those of us who ‘deserve’ to benefit from scarce resources. Since so many revolutions have been violent, some people tend to equate ‘revolution’ with a violent seizure of power. The option of violence has, however, not been much considered by ecologists. It is by no means a necessary ingredient of this strategic profile. The reason for calling it revolutionary, is the wish for a quickest possible transition to a new societal system, governed by a new elite. Such an enlightened elite is not to be overruled by the public majority. Experts are to decide what should be done for the sake of future generations. In practice, one would therefore hardly hesitate, if the opportunity should knock for a seizure of power through a straight coup d’e´tat. Still, like the Reformists, Impatient Revolutionaries also need some kind of support from below, if they are to succeed in their efforts. The proponents of such a strategy have, as one could expect, a different background from the Reformists. The belief in present top figures sorting things out, is often put forward by the same elites. The belief in educated elites on the outskirts of today’s spheres of power, tends to be most common among intellectuals who, at the most, have some power in their university or within their small revolutionary group (Table 3). ‘Ecofascists’ is a frequently used term for people who would accept dictatorial measures in the name of ecology. In some cases, such an expression is obviously correct. In Germany especially, neo-Nazis and other fascists often include ecology in their arguments for a new course. The term ‘ecofascism’ is, however, not always reserved for people
282
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
TABLE 3. STRATEGIC PROFILE 2
Impatient Revolutionaries
Solution within the present order? No
Top-down or bottomup? Top-down
Transition possible now? Yes
who belong to or identify with the network of such organisations. Some leftists tend to apply this label to any ecologists who do not belong to a declared left-wing tradition. ‘Eco-dictatorship’ is a term that I normally find more proper for both left- and rightwing variants of Impatient Revolutionaries. But even this is a term that one normally prefers to use of others, and not of oneself. In written works, proponents of eco-dictatorship will in most cases formulate their view most cautiously. Still, some ecopolitical thinkers have expressed themselves quite clear in such a direction. This was particularly the case in the USA in the 1970s. Those thinkers saw a contradiction between global survival and the wish for democracy. They then gave priority to the first consideration. In his book on ecology and politics, the former US officer and diplomat William Ophuls declared the need for ‘a class of ecological mandarins’. Only ‘those possessing the ecological and other competencies necessary to make prudent decisions’ will be ‘allowed full participation in the political process’.15 Almost at the same time, the US Marxist economist Robert Heilbroner presented very similar thoughts on ecological elitism.16 The Italian-Canadian philosopher Laura Westra— Secretary of the International Society for Environmental Ethics—is a more recent spokesperson for this view. Westra’s Principle of Integrity puts the preservation of Earth’s lifesupport systems ahead of all other social causes. In the name of the environment, she does not hesitate ‘impugning’ what she calls ‘the sacred cow’ of democracy.17 Impatient Revolutionaries seem to be less happy with their alternative than proponents of other strategies. This is a result of putting belief before hope. They would have preferred democracy, but what they propose is authoritarian regimes. This being the case, one would have expected heavy arguments explaining why their ‘undesired’ alternative is so much more viable than their desired alternative. Such arguments are, however, not easy to find. Impatient Revolutionaries have no problems telling us where the weaknesses of other approaches are to be found, but are amazingly silent when it comes to explaining why authoritarian elites are more likely to introduce ecological solutions than more democratic regimes. How are they supposed to seize power, and who are to decide which alternatives are the most future-oriented in day-to-day politics? The Patient Revolutionaries When proponents of this approach take a look around, they find no base for the transformation they want. Not from above, and not from below. The way things are today, neither authorities nor grassroots can be stimulated to change the present course for the benefit of future generations. The Patient Revolutionaries believe that things must get worse before they can get better. The time for a change has still not come. Only a total environmental or social collapse will open up people’s minds to the necessity of a transition. But then things may
283
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
happen very quickly. The new course will be decided by those who are best prepared for such a situation. Until a transformation is possible, one should thus prepare for the right moment. If one is to win the future battle for hearts and minds, education and social learning is seen as the route. Rather than trying to influence today’s political and economical decisions, one thus gives priority to long-term awareness raising. Except for this, it is not always clear how we are supposed to prepare for the crisis. Some would mobilise for ‘good’ causes now, as they think that such involvement will increase the awareness of the participants. Others think it makes more sense to wait, as they see no point in trying to influence present actors at all. Still others have already started building the ‘lifeboats’ they find necessary for surviving the coming collapse. Patient green revolutionaries also have certain roots within the Marxist tradition. Among Leninists in particular, revolutionary patience has been regarded as a virtue; the object was to stimulate action for long-term goals, rather than initiating spontaneous action as soon as the chance was there. Regarding education as the major force in changing society is, however, not that easy for Marxists. Such an approach can be said to collide with a structuralist/materialist position. According to this view, educational institutions will mainly disseminate the ideas that are in the interests of the existing order. On the other hand, Patient Revolutionaries do not represent a ‘pure’ left wing approach. Socially as well as politically they are a heterogeneous group. To a much larger extent than the ‘impatients’, they may include ways of democracy similar to the present ones. But this presupposes institutions and processes that enable the elected bodies to act quickly when the time is there. Like the ‘impatients’, they do not tend to believe in violence (Table 4). Lester W. Milbrath is a leading example of a ‘Patient Revolutionary’. In books, articles and pamphlets, this US Professor Emeritus of political science has discussed the shift to what he calls ‘NEP’ (New Environmental Paradigm). Milbrath does, however, not believe that the current society can be redirected as long as it appears to most people to be working reasonably well. His prescription is to prepare for the moment when things get bad enough to force us to cast about. Then we can make changes that would be beyond the realm of possibility in ‘normal times’. According to Milbrath, nature itself will turn out to be our most powerful teacher. Relearning will be the result of a shock therapy, as people realise how much their lives depended on biospheric systems functioning the way they used to.18 What do we do in the meantime? Milbrath finds it ‘depressing to merely wait for people to open their minds’. He notes that ‘some people achieve a sense of satisfaction by becoming politically active’. There is, however, no reason to expect results in the short run.19 Social movements cannot reach out beyond a small cadre of people who already are tuned in. Neither is there much use in political parties urging a new social paradigm now. Efforts to ‘educate’ people to social learning must be carried out over a very long time. TABLE 4. STRATEGIC PROFILE 3 Solution within the present order? Patient Revolutionaries No
284
Top-down or bottomup? Both
Transition possible now? No
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
The US social scientist John S. Dryzek warns against a strategy of awaiting the apocalypse. His warning is based on his belief in ecological democratisation as well as lessons from former political revolts. Dryzek accentuates recent experience from different parts of Eastern Europe, where a clear correlation can be noted between democratic legacy and the post-revolutionary outcomes. If we want ecological democracy after a crisis, we should pursue it in the here and now.20 Dryzek’s warning does not hit all Patient Revolutionaries. The German theologist and activist Gerhard Breidenstein is an example. For the next 10 or 20 years he sees no other perspectives than a dramatic deterioration, but he does not want to sit back and await the moment when things may improve. Breidenstein thinks that alternative experiments with living and working eco-collectives can become ‘life-saving islands’ during the dramatic eco-crisis he sees coming. Such islands or ‘lifeboats’ may be decisive for the survival of mankind. Disasters will come; the point is to make arrangements, so that their implication will be transition instead of destruction.21 The Norwegian author Steinar Lem also believes that crises in the form of wars and environmental destruction can create the necessary understanding for a new course. This presupposes that we are not hit by one ultimate, exploding disaster: ‘We need a benevolent eco-disaster, one which is not too nasty and suitable for television’.22 Like Breidenstein, Lem will not sit back and await the disasters. He wants ecological mobilisation here and now. Minor victories can be won, and even lost issues help to create crisis awareness among the participants. Patient Revolutionaries are more common in conversations about ecology than in literature on ecology. Their message might just not be of the kind that people care to spend too much energy spreading. What is, after all, the point of convincing other people that things can only get worse in the foreseeable future? Writing books and articles that may give people new hope is much more attractive than taking away hope that already exists. Maybe some ‘closet’ Patient Revolutionaries are to be found among the proponents of other strategies? Whereas Reformists have tried out their strategy for sustainability with limited success, and Impatient Revolutionaries hardly have been in a position to try, Patient Revolutionaries do not want to try yet. A weakness is their lack of ideas about what to do when the possible disasters they await actually occur. This is puzzling, since they think that the new course will be decided by those who are best prepared for such emergencies. Preparations should include developing strategic options for action during and after different kinds of crises, such as dramatic climate changes, big nuclear disasters or global food shortages with subsequent migrations. Multinational companies often work in depth with scenarios responding to unexpected, but possible future courses of events. Corresponding studies on how mankind is to meet environmental emergencies are indeed exceptional. The Grassroots Fighters The proponents of this profile have an approach that is completely opposite to both Reformists and Impatient Revolutionaries, insofar as they do not believe in a transition initiated from above. Neither politicians nor market forces can create a society that cares for future generations. Change must spring up from below, that is from outside the established institutions.
285
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
Dominating political and economic institutions are seen as belonging to yesterday. Attempts at solving today’s social and ecological challenges within such a framework result in perceptions, debates and solutions of an obsolete character. Such reforms are therefore bound to fail. Looking at history, Grassroots Fighters find no reason to trust revolutionary elites any more than the present power elite. Reforms introduced from the top will miss the target anyway. The main point is to build up new alternative structures from below, hoping that a majority will be influenced by the power of the example. To function, the process has to be poly-centric and based on awareness-raising. Unlike Patient Revolutionaries, Grassroots Fighters find no reason to await an intensified eco-crisis. Changing the course is possible now. There is no need to try to destroy the present system. It will be enough for people to withdraw support from it, for example as customers, employees, clients and voters. It may vary how complete this rejection of today’s institutions is. Some will not even ‘encourage’ the system through voting at elections, whereas others try to spread their view through active participation in the arena of party politics. Influence at a local level is seen as somewhat more achievable than influencing the establishment at a national or international level. Party politics is, however, never a main arena for Grassroots Fighters. They do not want to take responsibility for a system they are trying to get rid of. The power of political and economic counter-forces is regarded as much too big for such a project. As one would expect, proponents of this strategic profile rarely belong to the political or economic power elite. Some of them may have a past within (or rather on the outskirts of) the establishment, but they defected. Either because they were disgusted by the power play, or because they could not assert themselves within such a context. The approach is quite popular within new social movements, especially among people working with practical alternatives like new co-operatives, communes or eco villages. In addition, there are green ‘fundamentalists’ of fringe parties as well as idealistic business people who have found themselves green niches. If parallels are to be drawn from the history of ideas, anarchism and the utopian socialists of last century will be the most outstanding examples. On the other hand, less left-oriented ‘decentralizers’ have had corresponding ways of thinking. Both peasant and working-class movements have contained strong forces that chose paths beyond the dominating political and economical institutions, rather than fighting against them from inside (Table 5). Through his book The Sane Alternative, James Robertson, came up as one of the most reflected Grassroots Fighters. Twenty years serving for and co-operating with British governments made him conclude that progressive reforms introduced through government are ‘bound to be too little and too late, never properly planned, always contested and muddled’.23 As an alternative, Robertson presented ten positive roles that people can play in the TABLE 5. STRATEGIC PROFILE 4
Grassroots Fighters
286
Solution within the present order? No
Top-down or bottomup? Bottom-up
Transition possible now? Yes
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
process of transforming our society from outside the established institutions. These roles vary from opposing deterioration to constructing elements of a new society and ensuring that the old system breaks down as painlessly as possible for those who now depend upon it. The interaction of such different roles is what will make a transformation possible.24 Robertson, a co-founder of the New Economics Foundation in London, showed how such different, but positive roles can be combined with different important activity areas (for example energy, agriculture, health and education). In this way, he was able to present a multitude of possible transformation activities. The US libertarian socialist Murray Bookchin has been a leading figure in the ecology debate for more than 30 years. In his book Remaking Society. Pathways to a Green Future,25 he concludes very clearly that the present social order cannot be improved or remade into some kind of ‘eco-capitalism’. Bookchin believes in the rise of a new broad social movement, abolishing hierarchies in all their forms. Such a movement should alter one local community after another, and establish a system of confederated relationships between municipalities. These local systems are to make use of local resources and of all the practical ecological alternatives being developed. At long last, these counter-institutions are supposed to destabilise the central power, enabling a transformation. Green Party activist Brian Tokar from the USA is one out of several other authors who have presented interesting grassroots models based on decentralisation and more self-reliance.26 None of them have any illusions about an easy transformation process. Within the ‘vanguard’, most activists are themselves still caught up in lifestyles and consumption patterns that are far from sustainable. In addition, ideas of self-reliance imply new and challenging roles. For many people, present dependence on others provides a sense of security. Within the elites, domination is very often what provides security and self-worth. Especially the latter group is an obstacle to change. Still, there is no lack of examples of good sustainable practices, from individuals as well as from local communities and public authorities.27–34 The Grassroots Fighters’ hope for the future lies in the fact that more and more people in managerial and professional positions feel imprisoned in roles they consider as worthless. They are therefore open to change in a sustainable direction. But no good answer has been provided on how to counteract attempts from the remaining power apparatus to stop an ‘undermining’ from below. This omission is perhaps the most serious shortcoming of this strategy so far. The Multifaceted Radicals Like all other strategies mentioned, except the Reformists, proponents of this profile do not think that the present social order is capable of introducing future-oriented governance. They believe in the necessity of replacing today’s dominating institutions with new ones, which are better adapted to new social and ecological realities. The Multifaceted Radicals share the Grassroots Fighters’ scepticism of revolutionary elites. On the other hand, the clear-cut bottom-up approach of the Grassroots Fighters is rejected. The hundred flowers should blossom inside of as well as outside of the established institutions. Neither a new power elite nor an effective grassroots movement is regarded as sufficient for bringing through a shift to a sustainable society. There is a belief in a process of change where the same persons tend to be active in different contexts, and the struggle thus goes on in most sectors of society. A multitude
287
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
of activities are to be prepared for, so that proponents of a future-oriented course will be visible everywhere. Different arenas may be more or less important at different stages of the transition. One point of view is that bottom-up approaches should be emphasised now, whereas top-down approaches will play a major role at a later stage. No reason is, however, found for postponing action to a later stage. Neither an intensified crisis nor a new societal system has to come prior to a mobilisation. In spite of the fact that counter-forces are powerful, there is a belief in influencing people’s attitudes, lifestyles and behaviour here and now. And some urgent problems are possible to solve with the help of our existing institutions. Still, the Multifaceted Radicals are sceptical of the function of the present parliamentary system, both when it comes to democratic content and to approaching a sustainable policy. This does not mean that they find the arena of party politics important. Within multiparty systems, even participation in government may be part of the strategy. The role of the grassroots is, however, not at all limited to putting pressure upon political and economic power elites. Attempts at designing a new course should be made both from above and from below. Changes in public awareness, changes in lifestyles and changes in institutions are supposed to be part of one and the same strategy. We are dealing with a gradual process which has already started, even though the main course of development has still not taken a sustainable direction. Different (and very often diffuse) opinions prevail as to how distinct the moment is supposed to be, at which we shall change over from the present social order to a sustainable society. The Multifaceted Radicals are a heterogeneous group, politically as well as socially. However, with regard to geography, they seem to be particularly many in Scandinavia; an area where political extremism has never been common (Table 6). The Indian researcher and activist, Rajni Kothari, does not subscribe to the ‘Grassroots’ view that changes in attitudes should precede institutional changes. A revolution in our minds is to take place side by side with efforts at constructing new major institutions.35 He wants minimum as well as maximum standards of material living, but warns against fully worked-out models for the future. To avoid utopias turning into dystopias, new institutions should leave much to spontaneous and voluntary efforts at various levels, and allow human individuals enough scope to pursue their own designs for themselves. A successful transformation involves both an intellectual understanding of available options and a political understanding of the issues involved in translating intellectual choices into concrete reality. According to Kothari, a relevant strategy for change has to combine practical sensitivity with normative imagination. The social movement which he later founded, Lokayan, has been working along these lines. Erik Dammann has quite a lot in common with Rajni Kothari, in spite of the fact that they live in very different parts of the world. Like Kothari, the Norwegian author Dammann has founded a social movement. The Future in Our Hands works for solidarity TABLE 6. STRATEGIC PROFILE 5
Multifaceted Radicals
288
Solution within the present order? No
Top-down or bottomup? Both
Transition possible now? Yes
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
and a simpler lifestyle in the North. Kothari and Dammann have both received the ‘Alternative Nobel Prize’ (the Right Livelihood Award) for their future-oriented activities. In his book Revolution in the Affluent Society, Dammann stresses the value of fresh thinking, experiments, campaigns, examples and counteractive action. To be ‘counteractive’, action for change has to break away from what present society primarily depends on; ‘everyone competing for narrow, material, private gain and status’.36 An example of a counteractive solution is parents who both want to spend more time with their young children, thus putting other values ahead of competition for private, economic and professional status. Dammann wants society to ‘arrange things’ to allow for more part-time work and similar solutions promoting simpler lifestyles and more sustainable consumption. He dissociates himself completely from elitist approaches, supporting ‘the ordinary person’s right to take control from those who are too intelligent to understand the purpose of it all’.37 As we can see, the contrast is absolute compared with Ophuls’, Heilbroner’s and Westra’s belief in intellectuals having special qualifications for solving the eco-crisis. The Danish authors of Revolt from the Center 38 triggered a broad public debate in Scandinavia, and sold more than 100 000 copies in Denmark alone (a country with 5 million inhabitants). A professor of physics, a liberal politician and an essayist here describe their utopia of a humane society in ecological balance, and discuss ways and means of achieving it. The ‘revolt’ of the three Danes intended to avert a political polarisation, which hands over the initiative to the left and right, thus paralysing the political ‘center’. They also warned against a ‘psychological’ polarisation; between those who believe in change of attitude as the only way and those who believe in a change of system as the only way. Their bridge-building strategy seeks to prevent new institutions and elites from just taking over the old functions.39 Quite a few Green Party politicians have come to share this profile as well. Most Multifaceted Radicals do, however, see vital obstacles to the transformation they want. Some even ask whether the whole process is realistic, as long as we are unwilling to make ourselves less dependent on the competitive global economy. My experience with presenting the five strategic profiles, is that The Multifaceted Radicals to many people emerge as an obvious choice, making it possible to ‘have it both ways’. Things are, however, not as simple as that. Some would even say that the lack of success for ‘green’ policies is due precisely to the belief that ‘everyone’ is a possible agent of the shift to a sustainable society. If a core of people is needed to coordinate the transformation, their job might get quite difficult within such a diverse approach. Which path to choose? As we have seen, all the five strategic profiles have their strength and their weaknesses. Table 7 presents the main differences, relating the profiles to the three main questions posed. At this stage, one would perhaps expect me to tell which pathway I find to be the correct one myself, if we are to approach a society that responds to the needs of future generations. However, I do not think there is one correct way that will lead us in the direction we want.
289
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
TABLE 7. FIVE ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES FOR SUSTAINABILITY: MAIN DIFFERENCES Strategic profile
Solution within the existing order?
Top-down or bottom-up?
Transition possible now?
Reformists Impatient Revolutionaries Patient Revolutionaries Grassroots Fighters Multifaceted Radicals
Yes No No No Partly
Top-down Top-down Both Bottom-up Both
Yes Yes No Yes Yes
As we know, many paths lead to Rome. I think there are many paths that could lead to future-oriented governance as well. The main choice is not which strategy to believe in, but our choice between involvement and resignation. People who see no pathway leading to the goal, tend to resign. Resignation will most certainly lead us toward an eco catastrophe that would provide dark and gloomy prospects for future generations. Whereas the combined efforts of Reformists, Impatient Revolutionaries, Grassroots Fighters and Multifaceted Radicals may be able to produce the necessary dynamics to meet the needs of future generations for another development. Followers of the fifth strategy, the Patient Revolutionaries, may not be of much help at this stage, unless they are willing to do something to improve things here and now. Still, they do at least teach us the importance of patience, a quality which will probably be very much needed by the followers of other strategies as well. I have already mentioned that many paths lead to Rome. We also know that Rome was not built in a day. A society that responds the needs of future generations is not something that can start functioning as from tomorrow. It could not, even if we all had the best of intentions. Both individuals and institutions will certainly need a transition period, during which we adapt to new standards and values. Premature attempts to turn things upside down might only lead to backlashes and disappointments, thus turning activists toward resignation instead of further involvement. Dynamic realism The opposite ditch is, however, closer and more dangerous. Within governments as well as in the public debate, there is a clear tendency to relate only to what seems immediately viable. The present view of realism is thus static. People’s desires and yearnings are only taken seriously to the extent that they can be met within the present society. In other words the same society that is to be changed. This way of thinking should rather be replaced by a dynamic realism. Rather than considering only what seems practicable in the short run, we must use foresight and deal with dangers that are essential to avoid. Dynamic realism means behaving realistically in relation to long-term trends which cannot be allowed to continue.40 If we choose this starting point, the realists will often be found behind slogans that ‘cannot gain a majority’ or ‘cannot be imposed upon business life’. The persons out of touch with real life, are our political and economical elites, that is as long as they continue acting in ways that point toward a social and ecological collapse. Even if all individuals within the establishment have good reasons for filling their roles the way that they do. And even if solid, holistic alternative societies have not yet been demonstrated.
290
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
The main task of the present generations is to redirect the present course to the advantage of future generations. If we are to achieve this, we have to find out how the unlikely can become possible. This is why we need more strategical thinking and debate. Not to produce simple ‘answer books’, but to keep going a continuous debate on how to match short term action with long term goals.
Notes and references 1. 2.
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
9.
10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.
Yazaki, K., Path to Lia´ng Zhi. Seeking an Eternal Philosophy. Kyoto/New York, Future Generations Alliance Foundation, 1994, pp. 43–45. This Commission was headed by the then Swedish Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson and former Secretary General of the British Commonwealth Sir Shridath Ramphal. The Commission was appointed as a result of talks between leading members of earlier UN commissions, among others Willy Brandt, Gro Harlem Brundtland and Julius Nyerere. Carlsson, I. and Ramphal, S. (eds), Our Global Neighbourhood. The Report of the Commission on Global Governance. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 335. The symposium was organized by Future Generations Alliance Foundation, Kyoto, and the Hawaii Research Center for Futures Studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. A book based on the symposium, edited by Jim Dator and Kim Tae-Chang, will be published soon by Adamantine, London. Brundtland, G. H. (chairman), Our Common Future. Oxford/New York, Oxford University Press, 1987, p. 43. Dobson, A., Green Political Thought, 2nd edn. London/New York, Routledge, 1995. Dahle, K., Forsøk for forandring? Alternative veier til et bærekraftig samfunn. Oslo, Spartacus, 1997. The paper is mainly based on chapter 2 of my new Norwegian book (op cit), of which the title means ‘Experiments for Societal Change?’. The book was the result of a co-project between ProSus (Project for Research and Documentation for a Sustainable Society) and Ideas Bank Foundation. Both institutions arose out of the no longer existing Alternative Future Project (1985–95). James Robertson (see Grassroots Fighters) has more faith in today’s British establishment than was the case a decade or two ago. Today he fits into the ‘Multifaceted Radicals’ category (personal communication). On the other hand, authors like Erik Dammann and Rajni Kothari (see Multifaceted Radicals) have become more pessimistic over the years. Globalisation has created a setting they see as very difficult to change from within. As a result of this, their thoughts are now closer to the categories of ‘Grassroots Fighters’ and ‘Patient Revolutionaries’ than was the fact when they wrote their main strategic works (Dammann, E., Er den nødvendige endring mulig? In Ikke bare si det men gjøre det. Om bærekraftig utvikling, eds N. C. Stenseth and K. Hertzberg. Universitetsforlaget/Alternativ Framtid, Oslo, 1992; Kothari, R., The yawning vacuum. A world without alternatives. Alternatives, 1993, 18. Gore, A., Earth in the Balance. Forging a New Common Purpose. Houghton, Boston/Earthscan, London, 1992, p. 360. Brundtland, op cit, p. 343. Carlsson and Ramphal, op cit, p. 352. Starke, L., Signs of Hope. Working Towards Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, 1990. Bookchin, M., Remaking Society. Pathways to a Green Future. Boston, South End Press, 1990, p. 158. Ophuls, W., Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity. Prologue to a Political Theory of the Steady State. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1977, p. 163 Heilbroner, R. L., An Inquiry Into the Human Prospect. Norton, New York, 1974. Westra, L., An Environmental Proposal for Ethics. The Principle of Integrity. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD, 1994, p. 193. Milbrath, L. W., Envisioning a sustainable society. In New Thinking for a New Millennium, ed. R. A. Slaughter. Routledge, London/New York, 1996, p. 195. Milbrath, L. W., Envisioning a Sustainable Society. Learning Our Way Out. State University Press, New York, 1989, pp. 379–380. Dryzek, J. S., Strategies of ecological democratization. In Democracy and the Environment. Problems and Prospects, eds W. Lafferty and J. Meadowcroft. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 1996, p. 114–115. Breidenstein, G., Hoffen inmitten der Krisen. Von Krankheit und Heilung unserer Gesellschaft. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main, 1990. Lem, S., Den tause krigen mot de fattige og mot miljøet—og hva som må gjøres. Forum, Oslo, 1994, p. 174. Robertson, J., The Sane Alternative. A Choice of Futures (rev. edn). Oxon, 1983. Ibid, pp. 101–112.
291
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
25. 26.
27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.
40.
292
Op cit. Tokar, B., The Green Alternative. Creating an Ecological Future. Second edition. R. & E. Miles, San Pedro, CA, 1992. Other examples include an Australian professor (Trainer, T., The Conserver Society. Alternatives for Sustainability. Zed, London/New Jersey, 1995) as well as two Swedish social scientists (Bergstro¨m, S. and Friberg, M., Va¨gar till framtiden. Sekretariatet fo¨r framtidsstudier, Stockholm, 1986). Dahle, op cit. Dauncey, G., After the Crash, The Emergence of the Rainbow Economy (new edn). Green Print, Suffolk, 1996. Ekins, P., A New World Order. Grassroots Movements for Global Change. Routledge, London/New York, 1992. Jungk, R. (ed.), Katalog der Hoffnung, 51 Modelle fu¨r die Zukunft. Internationale Bibliothek fu¨r Zukunftsfragen/Luchterhand Literaturverlag, Frankfurt am Main, 1991. Kasin, O. (ed.), Practical Alternatives by Local Authorities in Scandinavia. Alternativ Framtid/Ide´banken I Praksis, Oslo, 1991. Nakkerud, M. B. (ed.), Practical Alternatives by Scandinavian NGO’s. Alternativ Framtid/Ide´banken I Praksis, Oslo, 1990. Seabrook, J., Pioneers of Change. Experiments in Creating a Humane Society. Zed, London, 1993. Trainer, op cit. Kothari, R., Footsteps Into the Future. Diagnosis of the Present world and a Design for an Alternative. Orient Longman, New Delhi; The Free Press, New York; North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1974. Dammann, E., Revolution in the Affluent Society. Heretic, London, 1984, p. 122. (Norwegian original: Revolusjon i velstandssamfunnet, 1979.) Ibid, p. 159. Meyer, N. I., Petersen, K. H. and Sørensen, V., Revolt from the Center. Maryon Boyars, London, 1982. (Danish original: Oprør fra midten, 1978.) Thoughtful Multifaceted Radicals also include the late German philosopher Robert Havemann (Havemann, R., Morgen. Die Industrigesellschaft am Scheideweg. Kritik und reale Utopie. Halle/Leipzig, Munich, 1980, Mitteldeutscher Verlag, 1990) as well as the Norwegian teacher Hartvig Sætra (Sætra, H., Den økopolitiske sosialismen. Pax, Oslo, 1973). Dahle, K., On Alternative Ways of Studying the Future. International Institutions, an Annotated Bibliography and a Norwegian Case. Alternative Future Project, Oslo, 1991, p. 40.
Futures, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 277–292, 1998 1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0016–3287/98 $19.00 + 0.00
PII: S0016–3287(98)00036-6
TOWARD GOVERNANCE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS How do we change course? Kjell Dahle In 1987, the UN World Commission on Environment and Development—perhaps better known as the Brundtland Commission—concluded that our present societal course is irresponsible toward future generations. Ten years later, we have hardly come closer to a solution of our planet’s long-range problems. But how do we change the course? Are there viable pathways that can take us from the present stalemate to a society that cares for future generations? The bottleneck is not a lack of good proposals for approaching sustainability. It is rather the lack of strength to implement them. Discussions about strategies and motors of social change have very often been absent on the ‘green’ agenda, but exceptions do exist. This article will present and analyse main strategic profiles within an expanding flora of literature about sustainability. 1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Opinion polls show a widespread belief that if things continue the way they are now, the result will eventually be a social or ecological collapse. Concerned scientists issue similar warnings. The destiny of our planet may very well be in the hands of the present generations. One choice is going on like nothing, feeling obligations only toward ourselves and people living here and now. This is the kind of attitude which Katsuhiko Yazaki calls ‘nowism’.1 Another choice is to care for the well-being of future generations, thus changing today’s course. This last option means leaving the usual short-sighted realm of day-to-day politics,
Kjell Dahle holds a graduate degree in political science from the University of Oslo. He works as head of project in the Ideas Bank Foundation, P.O. Box 2126, Gru¨nerløkka, N-0505 Oslo, Norway. (Tel.: 47-22206947 or 22809150; e-mail: [email protected]).
277
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
trying to develop policies that look beyond the next election and beyond immediate options in the global market. Instead of remaining mainly present-oriented, governance should become more future-oriented.
Governance and government ‘Governance’ used to be considered more or less synonymous with ‘government’. In a global context, the term was primarily associated with intergovernmental relationships. This has now changed, as stated by for instance by the Commission on Global Governance.2 This Commission emphasises that not only governments and intergovernmental institutions, but also non-governmental organisations (NGOs), citizens’ movements, transnational corporations, academia, and the mass media are involved in global governance.3 To the Commission, ‘governance’ is thus much more than ‘government’. I find this approach fruitful, since it includes the whole scope of actors that have obligations toward future generations. The shift to a more future-oriented governance is much too important a task to be handed over to governments alone. There is often a tendency, not at least among political scientists, to ignore or underestimate the impact of business on governance. I think we should break with this habit, while we also highlight and integrate the role of the growing civil society in the governance of our planet. Having such thoughts, I very much agree with a conclusion from one of the groups at a symposium in Honolulu in 1996 on Creating Future-Oriented Governance.4 This group claimed that governance is what we all do when we take responsibility.
Sustainability Future-oriented governance implies meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This is just how the Brundtland Commission defined ‘sustainable development’.5 To me, creating governance for future generations is therefore similar to approaching a sustainable society. The term ‘sustainability’ has been used and misused by a multitude of individuals, groups and vested interests. To many people, this term has therefore lost its value. I do not agree. Any similar label that managed to break into the public eye, would suffer the same fate. And how much use is there to terms which ‘purists’ can keep for themselves? We must, of course, watch out for ‘sustainable’ labels expressing disguised selfishness, in business as well as in politics. On the other hand, the problem should not be made bigger than it is. As long as the intention is caring for future generations, ‘sustainability’ is a much less ambiguous word in practice than in academic-philosophical discourses. I find the term most suitable for the purpose of labelling the kind of society we should try to approach for the sake of future generations. At least I do not see any better alternative. So let us then leave philology, and approach a much more interesting question: how can we succeed with our transformational efforts?
278
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
Getting from here to there There is no lack of studies describing the weaknesses of the present social order, or discussing the main challenges to future human survival. There is also no lack of analyses concluding (like the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992) with the necessity of a transition to a sustainable society that can secure the well-being of future generations. Less emphasis has been put on the question of finding viable pathways that can take us from where we are to where we want to be. Discussions about strategies and motors of social change are very often absent from the ‘green’ agenda.6,7 Green thinkers normally spend much time on examining what is wrong, some time on sketching theoretical alternatives and hardly any time at all on asking how these alternatives can be carried out in practice. This is a puzzle, given the enormous task of having the whole global community take a new line. The bottleneck is not a lack of good proposals for approaching sustainability, but rather a lack of strength to implement them. Those who are committed, and try to practice as they preach, very often feel like Sisyphus. Or they run their heads straight against a brick wall. I think we should become more engaged in asking what kind of strategies that can provide us the necessary strength to realise a shift to a sustainable society. Although most green thinkers are silent about this, exceptions do exist. This gives a basis for discussing different main strategies that may be applied for a transition. In this article I will analyse different approaches to the subject of finding a pathway taking us from where we are to a sustainable society.8 Three vital strategic questions will steer my analysis: 쐌 Is it possible to find the solutions within the framework of existing political and economic institutions, or will different obstacles make it impossible to break through without a new social order? 쐌 Is a new course mainly to be brought about from above (initiated by a political and economic executive elite) or from below (through new values, lifestyles and structures, believing in the power of the example)? 쐌 Can we approach our goals now, or is a new course impossible until an ecological or social collapse creates a foundation for more future-oriented thinking? Our answers to these theoretical questions are directive for what kind of practical action that makes sense if we want to approach a sustainable society. Different strategic viewpoints imply different choices of arenas, different key actors and different time tables. Rather than construing theoretical combinations of answers to the three questions, I have been searching for different profiles in the expanding flora of literature about sustainability. My intention is to present a broadest possible fan of reflected answers to the question of how to approach a sustainable society. Core assumptions of five alternative profiles are outlined in Table 1. The construction of such ‘ideal types’ is, of course, difficult. This is not only due to the complexity of the questions involved, but also to the lack of a thorough discourse on strategies for a shift to a sustainable society. Although the five profiles are mutually exclusive as ideal types, things are more ambiguous when it comes to thinkers and writers of real flesh and blood. Some strategists are situated in the borderland between different categories, even changing positions as their hopes and beliefs fluctuate over time.9
279
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
TABLE 1. FIVE ALTERNATIVE PATHS FOR A TRANSITION
Reformists Impatient Revolutionaries Patient Revolutionaries Grassroots Fighters Multifaceted Radicals
Key words
Key actors
Political decisions Revolt Collapse Personal responsibility Diversity
Present power elite A new power elite The well-prepared Activists Everywhere
In addition, choosing a strategy is not only a question of goals, but also of time and place. The starting point of a transition to future-oriented governance is very different in for example Norway, Bulgaria, Japan and Nigeria. This will, of course, influence the choice of strategy for change. The five alternative approaches are still, in principle, the same everywhere. The Reformists Those in favour of this main strategy, do not want any upheaval. The goal—a society that can secure the well-being of future generations—is to be reached through dynamic and efficient decisions taken by the present power elite. The transition should thus mainly be brought about from above, through the institutions of the existing social order. Firmness, resolution and ‘fingerspitzengefu¨hl’ are important keywords for the executive politicians of this most challenging transition period. With the assistance of national and international bureaucracies, these politicians are to balance the vested interests, while at the same time keeping different opposition groups in check. Seen through the eyes of the Reformists, the road to a sustainable society is paved with green taxes and international environmental treaties. Public regulation is, however, not sufficient. A transition will not be possible without a growing ecological awareness and adaptation by dominating market forces as well. Increased public environmental grants are also part of the scenario. Together with technological innovations they are to be important remedies during the process. In addition, one puts one’s trust in the educational system, which should foster positive attitudes to the ecological problematique within future generations. It would be impossible to get everybody within the present power elite to take part in a conversion to future-oriented governance. Some replacements will therefore have to take place within the top layer of society. In certain cases, infusions of fresh blood from the more co-operative of today’s dissidents will probably be imperative as well. The Reformists may differ in their opinions of how drastic measures our leaders should take. A total shift of system is, however, out of the question. The transition is to take place gradually. Step by step, but with a clear built-in tendency, today’s unjustifiable course should be altered in a more future-oriented direction. The present political and economic system will remain stable, though evolving. Paradoxically, even such a strategy presupposes the existence of a pressure from below; that is, outside the dominating institutions. Not to make a new structure emerge, but to give those in power backing for environmental decisions that they otherwise might be to anxious to make. Lobbying and political mobilisation is thus essential, since only an active public opinion can put the necessary pressure on today’s power elite.
280
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
An active opinion presupposes consciousness raising at the grassroots level, but the main point of the consciousness raising is to enable people to send the ‘right’ kind of signals upwards. How we vote at elections is one kind of signal. Green consumption is another way of influencing on top level decisions. Today’s ecological reformism has clear roots in traditional social democratic reformism. The transition to a sustainable society is supposed to be just as ‘gradualistic’, peaceful and almost inevitable, as one earlier used to visualise the transition from capitalism to socialism. The Reformist approach has especially many spokespersons among decision-makers within politics, public administration and business (Table 2). As we have seen, the Reformists see pressure from below as a way of making necessary decisions from above possible. Al Gore is a typical example of this. In his best-seller Earth in the Balance, he claims that no meaningful change can take place ‘until enough citizens who are concerned about the ecological system are willing to speak out and urge their leaders to bring the earth back into balance’.10 Al Gore is not a loner within the inner circles of power. The report of the UN Commission for Environment and Development gathered broad support for similar views, both within politics and business. It was important for the Commission to involve grassroots organisations in the process of promoting sustainable development. On the other hand, their recommendations are ‘carefully’ based on the ‘realities of present institutions’.11 The already mentioned Commission on Global Governance is a third important example of the Reformist approach. Aiming to promote stable, balanced, and sustainable development, they state that governments ‘can be made to initiate change if people demand it’.12 A problem with this approach, is that ordinary people’s responsibility for change is seen as limited. The focus on ‘top-down’ solutions does not encourage the majority to liberate itself from consumer pressure. Another problem is what the proponents of the strategy themselves have called ‘the tyranny of the immediate’. This phrase turned up in a statement by the UN Oslo Conference on Sustainable Development in 1988, called by Prime Minister Brundtland as Commission Chairperson. ‘The tyranny of the immediate’ means all the immediate needs and short-term interests that are powerful obstacles to people who want to work for a sustainable development.13 Probably none feel this kind of conflict between short-term and long-term interests more acutely than visionaries who have the responsibility for daily, executive decisions. After he was elected vice-president, this kind of tyranny has become a vital part of Al Gore’s daily life as well. Reformists do not want sustainable development to collide with competitiveness and market economics. This is a vulnerable point for groups within the power elite who have a far more radical past. Such former radicals have ended up where they are by following Rudi Dutschke’s appeal to German socialist students of the 60’s for ‘a long march through the institutions’. Many of them now feel that they have achieved much. From the outside, it may look quite different. TABLE 2. STRATEGIC PROFILE 1
Reformists
Solution within the existing order? Yes
Top-down or bottomup? Top-down
Transition possible now? Yes
281
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
About 20 years after Dutschke’s famous call, the US veteran of social ecology, Murray Bookchin, claimed that the long march had amounted to little more than adapting to the existing institutions. Without changing their character, and without troubling to create new ones. In this way, thousands of activists were lost within the institutions. ‘They went in—and never came out’.14
The Impatient Revolutionaries Like the Reformists, proponents of this profile think that social change must be brought about from above. But they do not believe that the present system can be reformed. A new elite must come to power as quickly as possible, thus securing more future-oriented governance through new institutions. In order to save the planet, drastic measures have to be taken by this elite. The impatients would have preferred a more democratic process, but do not think that this can be combined with saving the global environment. There is just no time to wait for the majority of the population to agree on the necessary changes. Both political and economic change is needed. On both arenas an enlightened minority will act for the common good, feeling sure that the elite is right whereas the majority grasps things too slowly. In addition, the revolutionary minority may claim to represent the interests of future generations, whereas the majority only represents the greed of people living today. This is an approach which has strong roots within revolutionary Marxism. The parallel to Lenin’s thoughts on the ‘democratic’ dictatorship of the proletariat is clear. The left wing does not, however, have any monopoly on this kind of thought. Anti-capitalism does not have to be red (here red-green), it can also be brown (here brown-green). One ¨ bermenschen’ should govern may be aware of the eco-crisis, and conclude that some ‘U to the advantage of those of us who ‘deserve’ to benefit from scarce resources. Since so many revolutions have been violent, some people tend to equate ‘revolution’ with a violent seizure of power. The option of violence has, however, not been much considered by ecologists. It is by no means a necessary ingredient of this strategic profile. The reason for calling it revolutionary, is the wish for a quickest possible transition to a new societal system, governed by a new elite. Such an enlightened elite is not to be overruled by the public majority. Experts are to decide what should be done for the sake of future generations. In practice, one would therefore hardly hesitate, if the opportunity should knock for a seizure of power through a straight coup d’e´tat. Still, like the Reformists, Impatient Revolutionaries also need some kind of support from below, if they are to succeed in their efforts. The proponents of such a strategy have, as one could expect, a different background from the Reformists. The belief in present top figures sorting things out, is often put forward by the same elites. The belief in educated elites on the outskirts of today’s spheres of power, tends to be most common among intellectuals who, at the most, have some power in their university or within their small revolutionary group (Table 3). ‘Ecofascists’ is a frequently used term for people who would accept dictatorial measures in the name of ecology. In some cases, such an expression is obviously correct. In Germany especially, neo-Nazis and other fascists often include ecology in their arguments for a new course. The term ‘ecofascism’ is, however, not always reserved for people
282
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
TABLE 3. STRATEGIC PROFILE 2
Impatient Revolutionaries
Solution within the present order? No
Top-down or bottomup? Top-down
Transition possible now? Yes
who belong to or identify with the network of such organisations. Some leftists tend to apply this label to any ecologists who do not belong to a declared left-wing tradition. ‘Eco-dictatorship’ is a term that I normally find more proper for both left- and rightwing variants of Impatient Revolutionaries. But even this is a term that one normally prefers to use of others, and not of oneself. In written works, proponents of eco-dictatorship will in most cases formulate their view most cautiously. Still, some ecopolitical thinkers have expressed themselves quite clear in such a direction. This was particularly the case in the USA in the 1970s. Those thinkers saw a contradiction between global survival and the wish for democracy. They then gave priority to the first consideration. In his book on ecology and politics, the former US officer and diplomat William Ophuls declared the need for ‘a class of ecological mandarins’. Only ‘those possessing the ecological and other competencies necessary to make prudent decisions’ will be ‘allowed full participation in the political process’.15 Almost at the same time, the US Marxist economist Robert Heilbroner presented very similar thoughts on ecological elitism.16 The Italian-Canadian philosopher Laura Westra— Secretary of the International Society for Environmental Ethics—is a more recent spokesperson for this view. Westra’s Principle of Integrity puts the preservation of Earth’s lifesupport systems ahead of all other social causes. In the name of the environment, she does not hesitate ‘impugning’ what she calls ‘the sacred cow’ of democracy.17 Impatient Revolutionaries seem to be less happy with their alternative than proponents of other strategies. This is a result of putting belief before hope. They would have preferred democracy, but what they propose is authoritarian regimes. This being the case, one would have expected heavy arguments explaining why their ‘undesired’ alternative is so much more viable than their desired alternative. Such arguments are, however, not easy to find. Impatient Revolutionaries have no problems telling us where the weaknesses of other approaches are to be found, but are amazingly silent when it comes to explaining why authoritarian elites are more likely to introduce ecological solutions than more democratic regimes. How are they supposed to seize power, and who are to decide which alternatives are the most future-oriented in day-to-day politics? The Patient Revolutionaries When proponents of this approach take a look around, they find no base for the transformation they want. Not from above, and not from below. The way things are today, neither authorities nor grassroots can be stimulated to change the present course for the benefit of future generations. The Patient Revolutionaries believe that things must get worse before they can get better. The time for a change has still not come. Only a total environmental or social collapse will open up people’s minds to the necessity of a transition. But then things may
283
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
happen very quickly. The new course will be decided by those who are best prepared for such a situation. Until a transformation is possible, one should thus prepare for the right moment. If one is to win the future battle for hearts and minds, education and social learning is seen as the route. Rather than trying to influence today’s political and economical decisions, one thus gives priority to long-term awareness raising. Except for this, it is not always clear how we are supposed to prepare for the crisis. Some would mobilise for ‘good’ causes now, as they think that such involvement will increase the awareness of the participants. Others think it makes more sense to wait, as they see no point in trying to influence present actors at all. Still others have already started building the ‘lifeboats’ they find necessary for surviving the coming collapse. Patient green revolutionaries also have certain roots within the Marxist tradition. Among Leninists in particular, revolutionary patience has been regarded as a virtue; the object was to stimulate action for long-term goals, rather than initiating spontaneous action as soon as the chance was there. Regarding education as the major force in changing society is, however, not that easy for Marxists. Such an approach can be said to collide with a structuralist/materialist position. According to this view, educational institutions will mainly disseminate the ideas that are in the interests of the existing order. On the other hand, Patient Revolutionaries do not represent a ‘pure’ left wing approach. Socially as well as politically they are a heterogeneous group. To a much larger extent than the ‘impatients’, they may include ways of democracy similar to the present ones. But this presupposes institutions and processes that enable the elected bodies to act quickly when the time is there. Like the ‘impatients’, they do not tend to believe in violence (Table 4). Lester W. Milbrath is a leading example of a ‘Patient Revolutionary’. In books, articles and pamphlets, this US Professor Emeritus of political science has discussed the shift to what he calls ‘NEP’ (New Environmental Paradigm). Milbrath does, however, not believe that the current society can be redirected as long as it appears to most people to be working reasonably well. His prescription is to prepare for the moment when things get bad enough to force us to cast about. Then we can make changes that would be beyond the realm of possibility in ‘normal times’. According to Milbrath, nature itself will turn out to be our most powerful teacher. Relearning will be the result of a shock therapy, as people realise how much their lives depended on biospheric systems functioning the way they used to.18 What do we do in the meantime? Milbrath finds it ‘depressing to merely wait for people to open their minds’. He notes that ‘some people achieve a sense of satisfaction by becoming politically active’. There is, however, no reason to expect results in the short run.19 Social movements cannot reach out beyond a small cadre of people who already are tuned in. Neither is there much use in political parties urging a new social paradigm now. Efforts to ‘educate’ people to social learning must be carried out over a very long time. TABLE 4. STRATEGIC PROFILE 3 Solution within the present order? Patient Revolutionaries No
284
Top-down or bottomup? Both
Transition possible now? No
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
The US social scientist John S. Dryzek warns against a strategy of awaiting the apocalypse. His warning is based on his belief in ecological democratisation as well as lessons from former political revolts. Dryzek accentuates recent experience from different parts of Eastern Europe, where a clear correlation can be noted between democratic legacy and the post-revolutionary outcomes. If we want ecological democracy after a crisis, we should pursue it in the here and now.20 Dryzek’s warning does not hit all Patient Revolutionaries. The German theologist and activist Gerhard Breidenstein is an example. For the next 10 or 20 years he sees no other perspectives than a dramatic deterioration, but he does not want to sit back and await the moment when things may improve. Breidenstein thinks that alternative experiments with living and working eco-collectives can become ‘life-saving islands’ during the dramatic eco-crisis he sees coming. Such islands or ‘lifeboats’ may be decisive for the survival of mankind. Disasters will come; the point is to make arrangements, so that their implication will be transition instead of destruction.21 The Norwegian author Steinar Lem also believes that crises in the form of wars and environmental destruction can create the necessary understanding for a new course. This presupposes that we are not hit by one ultimate, exploding disaster: ‘We need a benevolent eco-disaster, one which is not too nasty and suitable for television’.22 Like Breidenstein, Lem will not sit back and await the disasters. He wants ecological mobilisation here and now. Minor victories can be won, and even lost issues help to create crisis awareness among the participants. Patient Revolutionaries are more common in conversations about ecology than in literature on ecology. Their message might just not be of the kind that people care to spend too much energy spreading. What is, after all, the point of convincing other people that things can only get worse in the foreseeable future? Writing books and articles that may give people new hope is much more attractive than taking away hope that already exists. Maybe some ‘closet’ Patient Revolutionaries are to be found among the proponents of other strategies? Whereas Reformists have tried out their strategy for sustainability with limited success, and Impatient Revolutionaries hardly have been in a position to try, Patient Revolutionaries do not want to try yet. A weakness is their lack of ideas about what to do when the possible disasters they await actually occur. This is puzzling, since they think that the new course will be decided by those who are best prepared for such emergencies. Preparations should include developing strategic options for action during and after different kinds of crises, such as dramatic climate changes, big nuclear disasters or global food shortages with subsequent migrations. Multinational companies often work in depth with scenarios responding to unexpected, but possible future courses of events. Corresponding studies on how mankind is to meet environmental emergencies are indeed exceptional. The Grassroots Fighters The proponents of this profile have an approach that is completely opposite to both Reformists and Impatient Revolutionaries, insofar as they do not believe in a transition initiated from above. Neither politicians nor market forces can create a society that cares for future generations. Change must spring up from below, that is from outside the established institutions.
285
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
Dominating political and economic institutions are seen as belonging to yesterday. Attempts at solving today’s social and ecological challenges within such a framework result in perceptions, debates and solutions of an obsolete character. Such reforms are therefore bound to fail. Looking at history, Grassroots Fighters find no reason to trust revolutionary elites any more than the present power elite. Reforms introduced from the top will miss the target anyway. The main point is to build up new alternative structures from below, hoping that a majority will be influenced by the power of the example. To function, the process has to be poly-centric and based on awareness-raising. Unlike Patient Revolutionaries, Grassroots Fighters find no reason to await an intensified eco-crisis. Changing the course is possible now. There is no need to try to destroy the present system. It will be enough for people to withdraw support from it, for example as customers, employees, clients and voters. It may vary how complete this rejection of today’s institutions is. Some will not even ‘encourage’ the system through voting at elections, whereas others try to spread their view through active participation in the arena of party politics. Influence at a local level is seen as somewhat more achievable than influencing the establishment at a national or international level. Party politics is, however, never a main arena for Grassroots Fighters. They do not want to take responsibility for a system they are trying to get rid of. The power of political and economic counter-forces is regarded as much too big for such a project. As one would expect, proponents of this strategic profile rarely belong to the political or economic power elite. Some of them may have a past within (or rather on the outskirts of) the establishment, but they defected. Either because they were disgusted by the power play, or because they could not assert themselves within such a context. The approach is quite popular within new social movements, especially among people working with practical alternatives like new co-operatives, communes or eco villages. In addition, there are green ‘fundamentalists’ of fringe parties as well as idealistic business people who have found themselves green niches. If parallels are to be drawn from the history of ideas, anarchism and the utopian socialists of last century will be the most outstanding examples. On the other hand, less left-oriented ‘decentralizers’ have had corresponding ways of thinking. Both peasant and working-class movements have contained strong forces that chose paths beyond the dominating political and economical institutions, rather than fighting against them from inside (Table 5). Through his book The Sane Alternative, James Robertson, came up as one of the most reflected Grassroots Fighters. Twenty years serving for and co-operating with British governments made him conclude that progressive reforms introduced through government are ‘bound to be too little and too late, never properly planned, always contested and muddled’.23 As an alternative, Robertson presented ten positive roles that people can play in the TABLE 5. STRATEGIC PROFILE 4
Grassroots Fighters
286
Solution within the present order? No
Top-down or bottomup? Bottom-up
Transition possible now? Yes
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
process of transforming our society from outside the established institutions. These roles vary from opposing deterioration to constructing elements of a new society and ensuring that the old system breaks down as painlessly as possible for those who now depend upon it. The interaction of such different roles is what will make a transformation possible.24 Robertson, a co-founder of the New Economics Foundation in London, showed how such different, but positive roles can be combined with different important activity areas (for example energy, agriculture, health and education). In this way, he was able to present a multitude of possible transformation activities. The US libertarian socialist Murray Bookchin has been a leading figure in the ecology debate for more than 30 years. In his book Remaking Society. Pathways to a Green Future,25 he concludes very clearly that the present social order cannot be improved or remade into some kind of ‘eco-capitalism’. Bookchin believes in the rise of a new broad social movement, abolishing hierarchies in all their forms. Such a movement should alter one local community after another, and establish a system of confederated relationships between municipalities. These local systems are to make use of local resources and of all the practical ecological alternatives being developed. At long last, these counter-institutions are supposed to destabilise the central power, enabling a transformation. Green Party activist Brian Tokar from the USA is one out of several other authors who have presented interesting grassroots models based on decentralisation and more self-reliance.26 None of them have any illusions about an easy transformation process. Within the ‘vanguard’, most activists are themselves still caught up in lifestyles and consumption patterns that are far from sustainable. In addition, ideas of self-reliance imply new and challenging roles. For many people, present dependence on others provides a sense of security. Within the elites, domination is very often what provides security and self-worth. Especially the latter group is an obstacle to change. Still, there is no lack of examples of good sustainable practices, from individuals as well as from local communities and public authorities.27–34 The Grassroots Fighters’ hope for the future lies in the fact that more and more people in managerial and professional positions feel imprisoned in roles they consider as worthless. They are therefore open to change in a sustainable direction. But no good answer has been provided on how to counteract attempts from the remaining power apparatus to stop an ‘undermining’ from below. This omission is perhaps the most serious shortcoming of this strategy so far. The Multifaceted Radicals Like all other strategies mentioned, except the Reformists, proponents of this profile do not think that the present social order is capable of introducing future-oriented governance. They believe in the necessity of replacing today’s dominating institutions with new ones, which are better adapted to new social and ecological realities. The Multifaceted Radicals share the Grassroots Fighters’ scepticism of revolutionary elites. On the other hand, the clear-cut bottom-up approach of the Grassroots Fighters is rejected. The hundred flowers should blossom inside of as well as outside of the established institutions. Neither a new power elite nor an effective grassroots movement is regarded as sufficient for bringing through a shift to a sustainable society. There is a belief in a process of change where the same persons tend to be active in different contexts, and the struggle thus goes on in most sectors of society. A multitude
287
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
of activities are to be prepared for, so that proponents of a future-oriented course will be visible everywhere. Different arenas may be more or less important at different stages of the transition. One point of view is that bottom-up approaches should be emphasised now, whereas top-down approaches will play a major role at a later stage. No reason is, however, found for postponing action to a later stage. Neither an intensified crisis nor a new societal system has to come prior to a mobilisation. In spite of the fact that counter-forces are powerful, there is a belief in influencing people’s attitudes, lifestyles and behaviour here and now. And some urgent problems are possible to solve with the help of our existing institutions. Still, the Multifaceted Radicals are sceptical of the function of the present parliamentary system, both when it comes to democratic content and to approaching a sustainable policy. This does not mean that they find the arena of party politics important. Within multiparty systems, even participation in government may be part of the strategy. The role of the grassroots is, however, not at all limited to putting pressure upon political and economic power elites. Attempts at designing a new course should be made both from above and from below. Changes in public awareness, changes in lifestyles and changes in institutions are supposed to be part of one and the same strategy. We are dealing with a gradual process which has already started, even though the main course of development has still not taken a sustainable direction. Different (and very often diffuse) opinions prevail as to how distinct the moment is supposed to be, at which we shall change over from the present social order to a sustainable society. The Multifaceted Radicals are a heterogeneous group, politically as well as socially. However, with regard to geography, they seem to be particularly many in Scandinavia; an area where political extremism has never been common (Table 6). The Indian researcher and activist, Rajni Kothari, does not subscribe to the ‘Grassroots’ view that changes in attitudes should precede institutional changes. A revolution in our minds is to take place side by side with efforts at constructing new major institutions.35 He wants minimum as well as maximum standards of material living, but warns against fully worked-out models for the future. To avoid utopias turning into dystopias, new institutions should leave much to spontaneous and voluntary efforts at various levels, and allow human individuals enough scope to pursue their own designs for themselves. A successful transformation involves both an intellectual understanding of available options and a political understanding of the issues involved in translating intellectual choices into concrete reality. According to Kothari, a relevant strategy for change has to combine practical sensitivity with normative imagination. The social movement which he later founded, Lokayan, has been working along these lines. Erik Dammann has quite a lot in common with Rajni Kothari, in spite of the fact that they live in very different parts of the world. Like Kothari, the Norwegian author Dammann has founded a social movement. The Future in Our Hands works for solidarity TABLE 6. STRATEGIC PROFILE 5
Multifaceted Radicals
288
Solution within the present order? No
Top-down or bottomup? Both
Transition possible now? Yes
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
and a simpler lifestyle in the North. Kothari and Dammann have both received the ‘Alternative Nobel Prize’ (the Right Livelihood Award) for their future-oriented activities. In his book Revolution in the Affluent Society, Dammann stresses the value of fresh thinking, experiments, campaigns, examples and counteractive action. To be ‘counteractive’, action for change has to break away from what present society primarily depends on; ‘everyone competing for narrow, material, private gain and status’.36 An example of a counteractive solution is parents who both want to spend more time with their young children, thus putting other values ahead of competition for private, economic and professional status. Dammann wants society to ‘arrange things’ to allow for more part-time work and similar solutions promoting simpler lifestyles and more sustainable consumption. He dissociates himself completely from elitist approaches, supporting ‘the ordinary person’s right to take control from those who are too intelligent to understand the purpose of it all’.37 As we can see, the contrast is absolute compared with Ophuls’, Heilbroner’s and Westra’s belief in intellectuals having special qualifications for solving the eco-crisis. The Danish authors of Revolt from the Center 38 triggered a broad public debate in Scandinavia, and sold more than 100 000 copies in Denmark alone (a country with 5 million inhabitants). A professor of physics, a liberal politician and an essayist here describe their utopia of a humane society in ecological balance, and discuss ways and means of achieving it. The ‘revolt’ of the three Danes intended to avert a political polarisation, which hands over the initiative to the left and right, thus paralysing the political ‘center’. They also warned against a ‘psychological’ polarisation; between those who believe in change of attitude as the only way and those who believe in a change of system as the only way. Their bridge-building strategy seeks to prevent new institutions and elites from just taking over the old functions.39 Quite a few Green Party politicians have come to share this profile as well. Most Multifaceted Radicals do, however, see vital obstacles to the transformation they want. Some even ask whether the whole process is realistic, as long as we are unwilling to make ourselves less dependent on the competitive global economy. My experience with presenting the five strategic profiles, is that The Multifaceted Radicals to many people emerge as an obvious choice, making it possible to ‘have it both ways’. Things are, however, not as simple as that. Some would even say that the lack of success for ‘green’ policies is due precisely to the belief that ‘everyone’ is a possible agent of the shift to a sustainable society. If a core of people is needed to coordinate the transformation, their job might get quite difficult within such a diverse approach. Which path to choose? As we have seen, all the five strategic profiles have their strength and their weaknesses. Table 7 presents the main differences, relating the profiles to the three main questions posed. At this stage, one would perhaps expect me to tell which pathway I find to be the correct one myself, if we are to approach a society that responds to the needs of future generations. However, I do not think there is one correct way that will lead us in the direction we want.
289
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
TABLE 7. FIVE ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES FOR SUSTAINABILITY: MAIN DIFFERENCES Strategic profile
Solution within the existing order?
Top-down or bottom-up?
Transition possible now?
Reformists Impatient Revolutionaries Patient Revolutionaries Grassroots Fighters Multifaceted Radicals
Yes No No No Partly
Top-down Top-down Both Bottom-up Both
Yes Yes No Yes Yes
As we know, many paths lead to Rome. I think there are many paths that could lead to future-oriented governance as well. The main choice is not which strategy to believe in, but our choice between involvement and resignation. People who see no pathway leading to the goal, tend to resign. Resignation will most certainly lead us toward an eco catastrophe that would provide dark and gloomy prospects for future generations. Whereas the combined efforts of Reformists, Impatient Revolutionaries, Grassroots Fighters and Multifaceted Radicals may be able to produce the necessary dynamics to meet the needs of future generations for another development. Followers of the fifth strategy, the Patient Revolutionaries, may not be of much help at this stage, unless they are willing to do something to improve things here and now. Still, they do at least teach us the importance of patience, a quality which will probably be very much needed by the followers of other strategies as well. I have already mentioned that many paths lead to Rome. We also know that Rome was not built in a day. A society that responds the needs of future generations is not something that can start functioning as from tomorrow. It could not, even if we all had the best of intentions. Both individuals and institutions will certainly need a transition period, during which we adapt to new standards and values. Premature attempts to turn things upside down might only lead to backlashes and disappointments, thus turning activists toward resignation instead of further involvement. Dynamic realism The opposite ditch is, however, closer and more dangerous. Within governments as well as in the public debate, there is a clear tendency to relate only to what seems immediately viable. The present view of realism is thus static. People’s desires and yearnings are only taken seriously to the extent that they can be met within the present society. In other words the same society that is to be changed. This way of thinking should rather be replaced by a dynamic realism. Rather than considering only what seems practicable in the short run, we must use foresight and deal with dangers that are essential to avoid. Dynamic realism means behaving realistically in relation to long-term trends which cannot be allowed to continue.40 If we choose this starting point, the realists will often be found behind slogans that ‘cannot gain a majority’ or ‘cannot be imposed upon business life’. The persons out of touch with real life, are our political and economical elites, that is as long as they continue acting in ways that point toward a social and ecological collapse. Even if all individuals within the establishment have good reasons for filling their roles the way that they do. And even if solid, holistic alternative societies have not yet been demonstrated.
290
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
The main task of the present generations is to redirect the present course to the advantage of future generations. If we are to achieve this, we have to find out how the unlikely can become possible. This is why we need more strategical thinking and debate. Not to produce simple ‘answer books’, but to keep going a continuous debate on how to match short term action with long term goals.
Notes and references 1. 2.
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
9.
10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.
Yazaki, K., Path to Lia´ng Zhi. Seeking an Eternal Philosophy. Kyoto/New York, Future Generations Alliance Foundation, 1994, pp. 43–45. This Commission was headed by the then Swedish Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson and former Secretary General of the British Commonwealth Sir Shridath Ramphal. The Commission was appointed as a result of talks between leading members of earlier UN commissions, among others Willy Brandt, Gro Harlem Brundtland and Julius Nyerere. Carlsson, I. and Ramphal, S. (eds), Our Global Neighbourhood. The Report of the Commission on Global Governance. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 335. The symposium was organized by Future Generations Alliance Foundation, Kyoto, and the Hawaii Research Center for Futures Studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. A book based on the symposium, edited by Jim Dator and Kim Tae-Chang, will be published soon by Adamantine, London. Brundtland, G. H. (chairman), Our Common Future. Oxford/New York, Oxford University Press, 1987, p. 43. Dobson, A., Green Political Thought, 2nd edn. London/New York, Routledge, 1995. Dahle, K., Forsøk for forandring? Alternative veier til et bærekraftig samfunn. Oslo, Spartacus, 1997. The paper is mainly based on chapter 2 of my new Norwegian book (op cit), of which the title means ‘Experiments for Societal Change?’. The book was the result of a co-project between ProSus (Project for Research and Documentation for a Sustainable Society) and Ideas Bank Foundation. Both institutions arose out of the no longer existing Alternative Future Project (1985–95). James Robertson (see Grassroots Fighters) has more faith in today’s British establishment than was the case a decade or two ago. Today he fits into the ‘Multifaceted Radicals’ category (personal communication). On the other hand, authors like Erik Dammann and Rajni Kothari (see Multifaceted Radicals) have become more pessimistic over the years. Globalisation has created a setting they see as very difficult to change from within. As a result of this, their thoughts are now closer to the categories of ‘Grassroots Fighters’ and ‘Patient Revolutionaries’ than was the fact when they wrote their main strategic works (Dammann, E., Er den nødvendige endring mulig? In Ikke bare si det men gjøre det. Om bærekraftig utvikling, eds N. C. Stenseth and K. Hertzberg. Universitetsforlaget/Alternativ Framtid, Oslo, 1992; Kothari, R., The yawning vacuum. A world without alternatives. Alternatives, 1993, 18. Gore, A., Earth in the Balance. Forging a New Common Purpose. Houghton, Boston/Earthscan, London, 1992, p. 360. Brundtland, op cit, p. 343. Carlsson and Ramphal, op cit, p. 352. Starke, L., Signs of Hope. Working Towards Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, 1990. Bookchin, M., Remaking Society. Pathways to a Green Future. Boston, South End Press, 1990, p. 158. Ophuls, W., Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity. Prologue to a Political Theory of the Steady State. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1977, p. 163 Heilbroner, R. L., An Inquiry Into the Human Prospect. Norton, New York, 1974. Westra, L., An Environmental Proposal for Ethics. The Principle of Integrity. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD, 1994, p. 193. Milbrath, L. W., Envisioning a sustainable society. In New Thinking for a New Millennium, ed. R. A. Slaughter. Routledge, London/New York, 1996, p. 195. Milbrath, L. W., Envisioning a Sustainable Society. Learning Our Way Out. State University Press, New York, 1989, pp. 379–380. Dryzek, J. S., Strategies of ecological democratization. In Democracy and the Environment. Problems and Prospects, eds W. Lafferty and J. Meadowcroft. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 1996, p. 114–115. Breidenstein, G., Hoffen inmitten der Krisen. Von Krankheit und Heilung unserer Gesellschaft. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main, 1990. Lem, S., Den tause krigen mot de fattige og mot miljøet—og hva som må gjøres. Forum, Oslo, 1994, p. 174. Robertson, J., The Sane Alternative. A Choice of Futures (rev. edn). Oxon, 1983. Ibid, pp. 101–112.
291
Toward governance for future generations: K Dahle
25. 26.
27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.
40.
292
Op cit. Tokar, B., The Green Alternative. Creating an Ecological Future. Second edition. R. & E. Miles, San Pedro, CA, 1992. Other examples include an Australian professor (Trainer, T., The Conserver Society. Alternatives for Sustainability. Zed, London/New Jersey, 1995) as well as two Swedish social scientists (Bergstro¨m, S. and Friberg, M., Va¨gar till framtiden. Sekretariatet fo¨r framtidsstudier, Stockholm, 1986). Dahle, op cit. Dauncey, G., After the Crash, The Emergence of the Rainbow Economy (new edn). Green Print, Suffolk, 1996. Ekins, P., A New World Order. Grassroots Movements for Global Change. Routledge, London/New York, 1992. Jungk, R. (ed.), Katalog der Hoffnung, 51 Modelle fu¨r die Zukunft. Internationale Bibliothek fu¨r Zukunftsfragen/Luchterhand Literaturverlag, Frankfurt am Main, 1991. Kasin, O. (ed.), Practical Alternatives by Local Authorities in Scandinavia. Alternativ Framtid/Ide´banken I Praksis, Oslo, 1991. Nakkerud, M. B. (ed.), Practical Alternatives by Scandinavian NGO’s. Alternativ Framtid/Ide´banken I Praksis, Oslo, 1990. Seabrook, J., Pioneers of Change. Experiments in Creating a Humane Society. Zed, London, 1993. Trainer, op cit. Kothari, R., Footsteps Into the Future. Diagnosis of the Present world and a Design for an Alternative. Orient Longman, New Delhi; The Free Press, New York; North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1974. Dammann, E., Revolution in the Affluent Society. Heretic, London, 1984, p. 122. (Norwegian original: Revolusjon i velstandssamfunnet, 1979.) Ibid, p. 159. Meyer, N. I., Petersen, K. H. and Sørensen, V., Revolt from the Center. Maryon Boyars, London, 1982. (Danish original: Oprør fra midten, 1978.) Thoughtful Multifaceted Radicals also include the late German philosopher Robert Havemann (Havemann, R., Morgen. Die Industrigesellschaft am Scheideweg. Kritik und reale Utopie. Halle/Leipzig, Munich, 1980, Mitteldeutscher Verlag, 1990) as well as the Norwegian teacher Hartvig Sætra (Sætra, H., Den økopolitiske sosialismen. Pax, Oslo, 1973). Dahle, K., On Alternative Ways of Studying the Future. International Institutions, an Annotated Bibliography and a Norwegian Case. Alternative Future Project, Oslo, 1991, p. 40.