1. Democracy’s myopia: the search for long-term policy correction aids
Ton Bührs
Lincoln University

2. Democracy’s myopia
Liberal democracies are said to have difficulty addressing issues that require a long-term perspective and policy approach
Reasons (among other): short electoral cycles, dominance of sectoral/short term interests. Political rationality favours the short term
This is particularly a problem in the environmental area

3. Responses to the problem
Eco-authoritarian systems (Hardin, Heilbroner, Ophuls, Shearman and Smith)
With mounting environmental insecurity and conflict, authoritarian regimes are more likely to emerge anyway
Enhancing democracy – ‘greening states’ (Dryzek, Eckersley, Baber and Bartlett)
Stronger democracy is both more desirable and more effective

4. Need for a pragmatic & strategic approach
Stronger democracy is desirable but not happening – liberal democracy is being hollowed out by the concentration of power and wealth, growing inequality, the media and other factors
We cannot afford to wait for ‘radical’ reform to occur to save the environment (and ourselves)

5. Three main ways of ‘bringing in the future’
Promoting a cognitive framework that considers the future (more than the dominant neo-liberal paradigm) – sustainable development
Promoting long-term policy development – ‘green planning’
Promoting institutional reforms – tried and untried

6. Promoting sustainable development
OK, it is a woolly, broad and abused concept or discourse, but it can be redeemed:
The debate about its meaning is very much alive (not ‘under control’ by governments)
It provides a basis for the development of an alternative framework for economic policy
Significant social mobilisation (at all levels) occurs under its flag
It is compatible with enhancing democracy

7. Promoting ‘green planning’
Recognition of the need for more comprehensive and integrated environmental policy since the 1980s
Introduced in many countries under different labels (SDS, NEPP, NEAP)
Variable experiences – most successful in the Netherlands (institutionalised)
Much scope & need for improvement in most countries, including New Zealand

8. ‘Bringing in the future’ by institutional reform
Tried:
Institutionalisation of sustainability/sustainable development
Institutionalisation of the Precautionary Principle
Institutionalisation of environmental rights and duties in constitutions
Statutory long-term targets (CO2 emissions, UK) and/or green planning obligation
Creation of ‘Planning’ or ‘Future’ agencies, National Sustainable Development Councils
All with limited effectiveness – much symbolism, weak implementation

9. A few alternatives (i)
Increasing the length of electoral cycles (to at least 10 years)
Big risks for democracy (need for many more checks & balances)
Not necessarily environmentally effective
Creating an Environmental Reserve Bank, based on ‘green accounting’, sustainability indicators, and new ‘intervention’ mechanisms (independent from government)
Not good for democracy (technocratic rule)
Reactive rather than pro-active

10. A few alternatives (ii)
A ‘beefed up’ National Sustainable Development Council:
Independent from government
Elected & widely representative
Mandate: develop Sustainable Development Strategy, environmental monitoring and reporting, future (policy) scenarios
Strong science support basis, but also deliberative processes
Rationale: Let society (not government) define a desirable future; would be hard to ignore by governments (high legitimacy and credibility)

11. Conclusion
‘Bringing in the future’ in liberal democracies remains difficult despite a wide range of means being tried – the fundamental obstacles remain
Combination of complementary cognitive, policy and institutional reform likely to be more/most effective
A ‘beefed up’ NSDC represents such a combination