The Challenge

Since 2009, FDSD has considered, debated and offered proposals on how to resolve the tensions between existing liberal democracies, and the challenges of  sustainable development, such as climate change, biodiversity loss or excessive inequality This challenge has become more acute with the increase in lack of trust for democracies and political polarisation making it even harder to find common ground. You can find a summary of our thinking below.

Illustration based on image by © enisakysoy / Thinkstock

At one level, the ideas and reality of sustainable development and liberal democracy overlap and are interdependent. Common to both sustainable development and democracy is inclusive and equitable participation – the ability of all people to come together and be involved in decisions about how we live and the goals we want to achieve as societies.

The justicelegitimacy and transparency achieved by democratic contests and safeguards make the achievement of sustainable development fairer and accepted. The survival of democracy will also be very difficult in an unequal, resource-constrained and overheated world. In other words, sustainable development itself is foundational to any democratic political system.

Any such discussion also has to take into account the role and power of the economic system in creating problems and opportunities for both sustainable development and democracy, as well as the increased complexity and uncertainty of the challenges facing humankind.

There are, however, tensions between the two systems of ideas and practices which need to be resolved if current political democratic systems are to adapt in order to better tackle the challenges of sustainable development and meet the needs of future generations. You can find out more about some of these tensions in our briefing paper Exploring the tensions: The relationship between democracy and sustainable development. They are also set out in the table below:

Existing liberal democracies Sustainable development
Tendency to short-term thinking, activity and policy design

 

Greater focus on long-term impacts, intergenerational equity and environmental stewardship.

Dominant ethos of individual freedom Collaborative ethos
Competition between ideas and political parties ensures pluralism, with no single vision of the ‘good life’ or how to get there Shared goals to co-ordinate activities over time
Primary focus on representative government with relatively limited public and stakeholder participation Emphasis on more extensive public and stakeholder participation and collective decision-making
Defined political geographies and legally defined citizens Recognition that drivers and impacts cross political geographies, time, and levels of governance; affected parties include people in other political jurisdictions, future generations and nature
Economic growth seen as measure of success and way to deliver improved quality of life for citizens Pursuit of individual and societal wellbeing emphasised – integrating economic, environmental and social considerations
Environmental limits not systematically taken into account Environmental limits to economic and social activity
Decision-making divided into relatively discrete policy areas (such as health); use of socio-economic tools (eg cost-benefit analysis) for choice and resource allocation Integrated and precautionary policy in recognition of complex and uncertain impacts and interactions; supported by multi-criteria decision-making tools

 

This challenge is also part of the wider pressure on current models of democracy arising from the low levels of trust in democratic institutions and processes as well as increased political polarisation.

To more easily consider the innovations required, we can group parts of the overall challenge into several themes:

We also gather Ideas in Action which illustrate the different ways that people are addressing these challenges

We first looked at these issues in relation to climate change between 2009 and 2012. ‘The Future of Democracy in the Face of Climate Change‘ was a series of five papers which culminated in four future scenarios to 2050: transition democracy, post-authoritarian democracy, technocratic democracy and rationed democracy (based on two uncertainties: nature and availability of technology, and values prevalent in society).

Since then our thinking has further developed to incorporate the wider scope of environmental sustainability and socio-economic wellbeing, and particularly the needs of future generations.

Latest News & Comment

Wales—A Well-Being Nation 

Wales—A Well-Being Nation 

In this article, Derek Walker, Future Generations Commissioner of Wales, sets out his Office’s new seven year strategy, arguing that the WfG Act has to now “work harder and faster”, even though, at the same time as public finances, including his own office, are under severe pressure.

FDSD Newsletter, Autumn 2023

FDSD Newsletter, Autumn 2023

From national to local level, Scotland is rethinking how its policy, and participation practices, can better reflect sustainable development, wellbeing, and the needs of future generations. This FDSD newsletter showcases some of the activities that are happening, or are being considered.

Deepening Democracy for the Long Term | By Graham Smith

Deepening Democracy for the Long Term | By Graham Smith

The public’s perspectives on future generations are highly structured by the context in which they are articulated. A long-term perspective is rarely taken by people when they make immediate and everyday decisions – with the exception of those motivated by ‘lifetime-transcending interests’.