2

In much of the world, (liberal) democracy (in a broad sense) is seen as the best (or least bad) system of government, and in the 20th and 21st century, living standards have improved markedly in countries ruled by such systems and clearly outperformed competing systems, such as (attempts at) socialist/communist one-party rule with a planned economy, on many counts. But the regular 4-5 year election cycle puts short term gains over long term gains and rewards the interests of voters over non-voters, such as children or unborn generations. Those short term interests may be detrimental for the long term of the next 50–300 years. The failure to reach a global agreement on climate change at COP25 is a case in point. Of course, this failure is not limited to liberal democracies.

In political theory, have any systems been proposed to amend liberal democracy and build in ways to systemically consider more long term interests that may be of immediate concern to voters (or even require painful measures for the next years)?

  • 2
    The question assumes that COP25 was in the long term interest of humanity. Not in evidence. The question assumes that "liberal democracy" is what scuttled it. Not in evidence. We could also have a lively round of "that's not REAL liberal democracy" just as is done for the failed systems. – puppetsock Jan 7 at 20:40
  • 4
    A good example would be judges appointed for life in the US. Directors for central banks would be another example. They are considered to be among the most powerful people in the world but are by and large not elected to their positions. – Björn Lindqvist Jan 7 at 20:41
  • 2
    @puppetsockreinstateMonica COP25 was a complete failure, and there is widespread scientific concensus that urgent radical action on climate change is absolutely essential to avert global catastrophe in the next 50-300 years. See the IPCC reports. – gerrit Jan 7 at 20:44
  • 1
    @gerrit Whee! Now we can have a stirring round of the "consensus" game. And also a round of "the IPCC as authority" game. That will be fun. – puppetsock Jan 7 at 20:50
  • 5
    @puppetsockreinstateMonica If you have questions about the content of the IPCC reports, feel free to ask them on Earth Science. This is not the place to discuss it, and it is not even essential to the question as it's just an example, so even if you reject the science of climate change you can still recognise that the election cycle puts short term interests above long term ones. – gerrit Jan 7 at 21:04
4

Numerous mechanisms have been proposed to address the various sources of short-termism ranging from youth quotas in representative assemblies to mandatory posterity/environment clauses in laws etc. Here's a summary table from a book on the topic (Institutions For Future Generations, OUP 2016).

enter image description here

Whether they are practical and don't have other downsides... is a different matter.

As another chapter in the book discussed (p. 85), there are some fundamental problems/limits with all such mechanisms in the really long run, namely authorization and accountability:

there is no way for future generation to election their representatives in the present. [...] there is no way for future generations to hold anyone accountable who purports to speak on their behalf.

Well, other than tarring and feathering them in the history books, which actually might carry some weight with some leaders, but not with all...

| improve this answer | |
  • Good answer. Of course, everything has downsides. – gerrit Jan 8 at 8:30
  • +1, good and a solid answer. the risk I see is that a) the real concern, not in OP's question, that of selfish countries is still outstanding and b) that any change in political systems incurs political capital which means that, instead of spending it to fix global warming, we would be spending it debating this stuff and thus diluting popular attention and mobilization. this perfectly answers the question, yes, but i for one would be ill-amused if political energy went into making it happen. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Jan 8 at 14:58
  • Numerous mechanism have been labeled as being for the encouragement of long-term thinking. "The purpose of a system is what it does." When you examine these things and find that nearly the only effect is to increase the size and power of government, you need to stand back and re-examine the accuracy of the label. – puppetsock Jan 8 at 17:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .