Category: Environmental issues

New book – Power to the People

 

Power to the People - Cover page
Supreme Popular Assembly

Ton Bührs (2026), Power to the People. How New Zealand Can Lead the Way in Transformational Change (Tauranga: Fantail Publications). ISBN 978-0-473-79698-3 (Paperback); ISBN 978-0-473-79696-9 (Epub); ISBN 978-0-473-79697-6 (PDF).

Abstract

Despite its relative geographical isolation and its image as a safe haven, New Zealand is closely interwoven with the rest of the world and subject to many of the same intensifying environmental, economic, socio-cultural, and political problems that affect most other countries. These problems are interacting and converging into what is now referred to as a “polycrisis”, which threatens to overwhelm governments and lead to failed states, including New Zealand.

Governments appear both incapable and unwilling to address this polycrisis. At best, they adopt policies that mitigate symptoms while ignoring the root causes of worsening problems and trends. This book argues that the main reasons for this failure are systemic. The dominant economic system (capitalism), the inherent limitations of liberal democratic political systems, and prevailing socio-cultural systems create formidable obstacles to the transformational change required to address the root causes of the polycrisis.

Although many people think that governments are on the wrong path and that there is a need to radically change course (as reflected, for instance, in talk of a societal reset or rethink during the COVID-19 pandemic), most feel helpless and hopeless about how the future is unfolding. The idea of transformational change seems a lost cause, as the world is stuck on the business-as-usual treadmill.

In this book, I argue that transformational change is still possible, albeit not in the ways it has been pursued so far. Revolution, reformism, grassroots activism, and, more recently, technofascism, have been, or still are, presented as paths towards a better future. Yet, they are all fundamentally flawed and incapable of delivering on their promises. The main reason is that they do not fundamentally alter the distribution of power required to enable societies to choose and steer towards what they deem collectively necessary and desirable. Consequently, the power to make key decisions affecting their future remains in the hands of the most powerful elites, guided by their own interests, ideologies, and rivalries. To enable societies to move towards a future of their own choosing, that power must be put into the hands of the people (“us”).

To many, this may sound like a meaningless cliché. However, if one accepts that formal power (authority) is grounded in the principle of popular sovereignty (not in Gods, monarchs, parliaments or courts), as most even nominally democratic political systems do, then it is the people who should hold ultimate power. We need to look beyond the way this principle has been institutionalised in existing liberal and illiberal democracies. Democracy implies that the people as a whole (“we”) have the right to collectively decide how they are governed or how they govern themselves. This means that democracy is not just, or even foremost, about regularly electing representatives, parties, or presidents, as most democratic theorists seem to assume. It means that the people are formally entitled to change the system of government if they wish to do so and to exercise their supreme power through means of their own choosing.

However, apart from the odd referendum or vote on constitutional change, citizens rarely get the chance to participate actively in developing policies, let alone to debate and reshape the system of government. As a rule, the so-called elites have long considered the public incapable of fulfilling such roles knowledgeably and responsibly. Yet in recent years, a wave of experiments with deliberative democracy has proven them wrong, demonstrating that a more or less randomly selected group of citizens is highly capable of resolving complex and controversial issues. In fact, more so than elected politicians and governments. Research on hundreds of such experiments in dozens of countries has led the OECD (not an organisation known for radicalism) to argue that there is merit in institutionalising and embedding deliberative forms of governance in existing liberal democracies to improve their capacity and policies, strengthen democracy, and rebuild public trust. The organisation even goes as far as to suggest that the “Growing efforts to embed public deliberation into public decision-making could be seen as the start of a period of transformation to adapt the architecture of representative democracy.”[i]

Understandably, the OECD is not in a position to take this view to its logical conclusion. Against the background of the unfolding polycrisis, the failure of states and governments to even recognise the seriousness of the situation, the need for transformational change, and the fundamental right and capability of the people to decide how they wish to govern themselves, the time has come for a fundamental redistribution of political power from current political institutions towards a citizens’ body that is far more truly representative of the people – a Supreme Popular Assembly (SPA). Unlike elected parliaments, upper houses, let alone unelected supreme courts, an SPA can claim to reflect and encompass, “in miniature”, the whole of a society. It can deliberate on behalf of society in its diversity, seeking common ground in shared values and interests, especially in the longer term. Based on the principles of deliberative democracy, it can construct a real social contract in which the people (“we”) specify what they fundamentally agree on. Based on this contract, such a body would then be able to initiate further transformational change in the political, economic, social, and other realms.

New Zealand is in a better position to create a Supreme Popular Assembly than many other countries, largely because of what have traditionally been considered significant flaws in its political system. Once elected, even when based on a coalition of parties, governments have virtually unlimited power. There is no upper house to act as a check on that power, no written constitution that can be used to strike down their decisions as unconstitutional, and hardly any other means to hold them accountable than by “throwing out the lot” every three years. Yet the introduction of MMP (Multi Member Proportional Representation) via referenda has shown that changing the political system is possible and relatively less difficult than in many other countries. There is no reason why a dedicated group of citizens could not do this again by advocating for the establishment of an SPA as a complementary but sovereign political institution.

Therefore, New Zealand can lead the way in transformational change by establishing a Supreme Popular Assembly, thereby reclaiming its reputation as a politically and socially progressive country.

[i] OECD (2020), https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/innovative-citizen-participation-and-new-democratic-institutions_339306da-en.html. Paris: OECD.

Copies of the book can be ordered by emailing: fantailpublications@gmail.com. Paperback copies are available $34.99 + postage). EPUB and PDF formats are available for NZ$20.

Bolstering National Capitalism while Sacrificing People and the Earth

The election of populist leaders in many countries marks a new stage of anti-environmentalism aimed at saving capitalism, but it will destroy the Earth.

The re-election of Donald Trump marks a victory for anti-environmentalism. Trump’s announcements and staff appointments openly and blatantly aim at rolling back environmental regulation and weakening the capacity of the US government to tackle environmental problems and threats. Trump is not alone or the first in this quest. Many other political leaders and governments before him and around the world, from US Presidents (Reagan and the Bushes), Brazil’s Bolsonaro, and the right-wing government of New Zealand elected in 2023, to name just a few, have openly stated their commitment to relaxing or removing environmental constraints on economic development. Environmental actions that hinder economic development are increasingly criminalised or labelled as terrorism as they are said to harm the national interest.

What’s behind this? Putting the onus on individuals (populist leaders) or populism is simplistic and misleading. They may be the most vocal anti-environmentalists, but they are part of a broader and deeper movement aimed at destroying the capacity of states to address the environmental challenge effectively. At a time when concerns about global heating are surging, and scientists and environmental advocates are desperately calling for effective action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, politicians who explicitly reject the need for such action get elected.

One explanation is that other issues have arisen that dominate the political and public agendas. Rising prices and stagnating or falling (real) incomes, growing unemployment, unaffordable housing, food insecurity (dependence on food banks), and declining health care services, among many other social issues, understandably have priority for those affected. Add to that the COVID-19 pandemic, the conflicts and violence affecting millions of people in many parts of the world, the masses of refugees seeking a safe haven or a better life (migration), and ethnic tensions, and it becomes clear why climate change or environmental protection are not front-of-mind issues for many people. This also helps explain why many people vote for populist parties and leaders, as mainstream political parties and governments are often blamed for these problems and for not addressing them sufficiently.

However, most of these issues are interconnected and have arisen due to underlying factors and drivers. The main factors are political-economic. More clearly than ever, neoliberal governments are acting as committees serving the interests of capitalism, in particular, of their national branches. They affirm this openly in almost everything they say and do, even though they substitute the term economy for capitalism. Capitalism and its imperatives (economic growth and investment opportunities—capital accumulation) dominate everything else. Governments are trapped within the national political-economic systems that they serve. Heeding the needs of their national branches of capitalism has priority, even if this requires measures at the expense of their own people and the environment.

In the broader context, neoliberal globalisation enabled capital to flow to where the greatest profits could be generated. For a while, this served the interests of US and European capitalists well. However, with the rise of China and other rapidly industrialising countries, this “rule-based order” came back to bite the United States and many European countries, leading to deindustrialisation, rising socio-economic problems, and demands to protect domestic industries.

On the other hand, this government support benefits billionaires (so-called wealth creators), leading to extreme inequalities. Many politicians and experts serving capitalist interests also profit handsomely by receiving exorbitant salaries and bonuses, often through speculation or corruption. By contrast, despite many years of economic growth, the funding pool for public goods and services has been ever-decreasing.

The rise of China and other newly industrialised economies poses not only a formidable competitive challenge to Western capitalists, but is also defined as a geopolitical and military threat to US hegemony and the West. As China is an authoritarian state, this threat is easily converted into a threat to the freedom and democracy of the West that needs to be contained. “We” (especially the US) need to prepare for war with China and with Russia (especially the EU), which, of course, justifies boosting military spending and creates economic growth and new investment opportunities. If “needed”,  the use of force is justified to protect and advance these “national interests”.

Thus, the dynamics of capitalism have fuelled a politics of economic nationalism, socio-economic austerity, and environmental destruction. This causes social immiseration and polarisation, while privileging national capitalist economic interests.  As long as globalisation served American capital well, notably by opening up investment opportunities worldwide, free trade was the dominant mantra. However, with the weakening of the US’s competitive position and the social and political pressures caused by globalisation, the pendulum has swung back to protectionism. Both Biden and Trump adopted this course, with Biden, especially, by rebuilding essential infrastructure. Trump, by contrast, openly and bluntly privileges the interests of billionaires, including himself and his family. However, for both Biden and Trump, maintaining US hegemony was and is a priority.

The growing emphasis on national development and reindustrialisation does not bode well for the environment. As long as political-economic systems remain in the grip of capitalism, its imperatives will dominate all other interests, including social well-being and environmental protection. Environmental concerns are ignored or labelled “woke”, while keeping wages low and cutting social spending are touted as economic necessities. Thus, people and the Earth are sacrificed to save and bolster national capitalism, even if doing so will also imply the end of capitalism.

 

Population matters

Population size has been a topic of debate since Malthus. But the debate has often focused on a narrow range of issues.

Ever since Malthus published his Essay on the Principle of Population, population has been a topic of debate. Initially, much of the debate was driven by the fear that population growth would outstrip food production, resulting in widespread starvation and societal collapse. This fear was allayed by the “Green Revolution” in the 1970s, which increased agricultural production enough to feed a rapidly growing world population, from 3 billion in 1960 to 8 billion in 2022. More recently, in several countries, including China, Japan, and many European countries, concern has shifted in the opposite direction, towards declining populations. In particular, this concern focuses on the economic consequences of the “greying” of populations and the shrinking of the working-age groups. Some refer to these developments as posing a demographic crisis. India, which recently has overtaken China as the most populous country with over 1.4 billion people, is said to have its population policy right, while China got it wrong. To address these issues, increasing immigration is often proposed as a solution, a highly controversial topic in many countries. At the same time, the world population is expected to grow to 10.4 billion by the end of the century. Given the existing and aggravating environmental pressures and problems, this raises the question of how many people the Earth can support, especially with expectations of ever-higher consumption levels.

Thus, the “population issue” has shifted in focus, from food production to composition (greying, immigration) and population decline, to over-consumption and environmental pressures (sustainability). However, many of the contributions to the debate take a narrow view, looking at a single aspect and/or driven by a particular economic or political agenda. The debate is often cast as one between pessimism and optimism about the number of humans that countries or the Earth can sustain. Both positions reflect an anthropocentric worldview. Non-human nature is seen as important only inasmuch as it serves human interests. From an ecological perspective, but stated in human terms, it can be argued that humans have become a pest that destroys the conditions essential to the survival of numerous other species. That they do so is not just because there are too many of them. Even smaller societies have often wreaked havoc on their local environment. The heart of the problem lies in the fact that, as a species, humans have detached themselves from and stand apart from, or above, the rest of nature. To prevent humans from destroying the natural fabric on which their survival also depends, they must consciously and collectively integrate environmental imperatives into their thinking, behaviour and institutions.

If they were to do so, societies would maintain their numbers at levels considered environmentally sustainable, both locally and globally. Respecting the existence of all other species, they would restrict their ecological impacts and, within those limits, determine the size of their populations based on what they collectively consider desirable, based on qualitative and quantitative criteria. This is, of course, not how the world works at the moment. Initially, the size of populations is determined by the decisions of individuals or families, which are not easily controlled collectively. Second, how governments interpret or define the population issue and what they do or don’t do about it is foremost a matter of political economy. Whose views prevail collectively and are converted into policies and given effect depends on the distribution and exercise of power within political-economic systems.

A Planetary Tragedy

‘A Planetary Tragedy’ delves into the question why governments have failed to address the environmental challenge effectively.

The print edition of my latest book, A Planetary Tragedy: Why Humanity Fails the Environmental Challenge (November 2022), is available in both PDF format and paperback. Hard copies (NZ$59.95 + postage) can be ordered by email to buhrs2050@gmail.com.

A Planetary Tragedy addresses the question of why, some 50 years after ‘the environment’ became a topic of public concern, efforts to address environmental problems have by and large failed, and the world appears to be headed for a disastrous future. Although governments have adopted a raft of national and international measures to combat environmental issues over the years, most of these have proven inadequate, and the rate of environmental degradation has continued unabated. 

The book critically surveys and analyses the environmental performance of countries, in particular some that have been regarded as ‘environmental leaders’, and identifies and discusses three broad reasons for this failure. First, the way environmental problems have been predominantly interpreted, which largely ignores the deep and interconnected nature of the environmental challenge; second, the failure to recognise, let alone address, the systemic sources and causes of environmental problems; third, the power structures in the prevailing political-economic systems, which make it virtually impossible to fundamentally change those systems and to put societies onto a path towards sustainability.

Covering an extensive body of literature, the book draws on research, theories, findings, and ideas from various fields, including environmental politics and policy, comparative, international, and global analyses and perspectives, environmental sociology and history, economics and the environment, political and social theory, and environmental management. It puts forward a framework that can assist in taking a comprehensive and integrated approach to the environmental challenge, discusses the strengths and7 weaknesses of a range of theoretical perspectives, clarifies key concepts and factors central to better understanding the systemic issues and obstacles lying at the heart of the environmental challenge, and puts forward ideas on how to strategically address the enormous imbalance of power that stands in the way of transformative change. The main suggestion is the establishment of national-level Sovereign People’s Authorities, based on the principle of popular sovereignty, which will enable societies to democratically steer themselves towards a sustainable and desirable future.

The book is essential reading for students and academics in the fields of environmental politics and policy, including comparative, international, and global environmental politics, as well as for those seeking a deeper understanding of why societies have struggled to address the environmental challenge more effectively. While not offering a basis for facile optimism, it identifies what will be needed to prevent the world from sliding further toward the abyss.

About the author

Born in the Netherlands, Ton Bührs graduated with a Drs in Political and Social Sciences from the University of Amsterdam. He moved to New Zealand in 1984 and completed a PhD in Environmental Policy and Politics at the University of Auckland’s Department of Political Studies. In 1991, he joined Lincoln University, where he became an Associate Professor in Environmental Policy and Politics until his retirement in 2014.

More “Unpleasant Surprises” From Pollution

As long as governments fail to adopt a comprehensive approach to preventing pollution, many more ‘unpleasant surprises’ are likely to pop-up in the future.

Just in the wake of the recent worldwide rise in concern about the pollution effects of plastic products, which now have been discovered world-wide, here is another installment of the many “unpleasant surprises” resulting from the virtually unbridled development and introduction of technologies and products without giving adequate consideration to their potential effects on humans and the environment.

An article in the Guardian of 28 August 2018 (“Air pollution causes ‘huge’ reduction in intelligence, study reveals”) reported on research undertaken in China that has shown that air pollution has a significant effect on human cognitive capacity. “It found that high pollution levels led to significant drops in test scores in language and arithmetic, with the average impact equivalent to having lost a year of the person’s education.” As 95% of the global population breathes unsafe air, this affects most people; however, the effect appears to be worse for the elderly, especially older men.

This is just another example of the numerous instances, starting with Rachel Carson’s revelations about the harmful effects of pesticides, where the development and introduction of new technologies and products have occurred without a rigorous assessment of their compatibility with both ecological systems and human health and well-being. This, of course, may require considerable research, take time, and be costly; things not compatible with short-term economic interests. In a competitive (capitalist) economic system, companies are under pressure to cut costs and corners for the sake of profit, shifting the burden of “unforeseen side-effects” or “externalities” to consumers, societies, and the environment. If anything, since Rachel Carson rang the alarm bells, the stream of new technologies and products that have hardly, if at all, been assessed on the unpleasant side effects of pollution that have been allowed to occur under the assumption that the effects on humans (and the rest of nature) were (‘probably’) not serious enough to worry about.

The approach to pollution control has commonly been reactive and fragmented, with measures taken only after the adverse effects on humans or the rest of nature have become apparent and are considered serious enough, and then usually only aimed at a single source or category. To date, no country has adopted a comprehensive approach aimed at preventing pollution, which would require the establishment of criteria and standards (for both products and production processes) based on the recognition that all products must be compatible with ecological systems and processes, and conducive to human health and well-being. In other words, this latest finding is just another illustration of the fact that environmental integration in the realm of production (in this case, of cars, trucks and buses, but also factories and the products that they make) still has to begin.