Autocrats don't have any terms and short-termism that comes with it, but we all too well know about dictatorships' shortcomings. Democracy, on the other hand, is based on candidates getting voters to like them every several years. People are more readily galvanized by something that's touted to benefit them soon, rather than benefit other people they don't know in decades to come. More frequent weather extreme events raised popularity of environmental ideas and green candidates, it's true, but climate action tends to be watered-down by the necessity to compromise (which is, one could argue, another direct consequence of democratic systems). And even if it wasn't watered-down, climate actions' effects would be pronounced in decades – which would be more than enough for voters to get disappointed and start to opt for things like dispersing aerosols in the atmosphere. Climate change is a good example, but it's not the only instance where problems require consistent long-term action which seems to be at odds with democracy and the way it works

Can short-termism be overcome, at least in theory? How?

  • term limits or lifetime appointments, either way short-termism is done away with.
    – CGCampbell
    Nov 21, 2022 at 14:52


Browse other questions tagged .