Environmental Governance in a Populist/Authoritarian Era

James McCarthy

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000606553
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Literature
• Subtopic: Literary Criticism for Women Authors
• Index: Literature

This volume explores the many and deep connections between the widespread rise of authoritarian leaders and populist politics in recent years, and the domain of environmental politics and governance – how environments are known, valued, and managed; for whose benefit; and with what outcomes.

The volume is explicitly international in scope and comparative in design, emphasizing both the differences and commonalties to be seen among contemporary authoritarian and populist political formations and their relations to environmental governance. Prominent themes include the historical roots of and precedents for environmental governance in authoritarian and populist contexts; the relationships between populism and authoritarianism and extractivism and resource nationalism; environmental politics as an arena for questions of security and citizenship; racialization and environmental politics; the politics of environmental science and knowledge; and progressive political alternatives. In each domain, using rich case studies, contributors analyse what differences it makes when environmental governance takes place in authoritarian and populist political contexts.

This book was originally published as a special issue of Annals of the American Association of Geographers.

INTRODUCTION

Authoritarianism, Populism, and the Environment: Comparative Experiences, Insights, and Perspectives

James McCarthy

Recent years have seen the widespread rise of authoritarian leaders and populist politics around the world, a development of intense political concern. This special issue of the Annals explores the many and deep connections between this authoritarian and populist turn and environmental politics and governance, through a range of rich case studies that provide wide geographic, thematic, and theoretical coverage and perspectives. This introduction first summarizes major commonalities among many contemporary authoritarian and populist regimes and reviews debates regarding their relationships to neoliberalism, fascism, and more progressive forms of populism. It then reviews three major connections to environmental politics they all share as common contexts: roots in decades of neoliberal environmental governance, climate change and integrally related issues of energy development and agricultural change, and complex conflations of nation and nature. Next, it introduces the six sections in the special issue: (1) historical and comparative perspectives (two articles); (2) extractivism, populism, and authoritarianism (six articles); (3) the environment and its governance as a political proxy or arena for questions of security and citizenship (seven articles); (4) racialization and environmental politics (five articles); (5) politics of environmental science and knowledge (six articles); and (6) progressive alternatives (five articles). It concludes with the suggestion that environmental issues, movements, and politics can and must be central to resistance against authoritarian and reactionary populist politics and to visions of progressive alternatives to them.

近年来，全球见证了威权领导人和民粹政治的广泛兴起，该趋势并带来了极度的政治忧虑。本刊特辑通过一系列在地理、主题和理论上涵盖广泛范围与视角的丰富案例研究，探讨威权主义与民粹政治转向和环境政治及治理之间众多且深刻的关联。本引文首先摘要诸多当代威权和民粹主义政体的主要共通处，并回顾有关其与新自由主义、法西斯主义以及更为激进的民粹主义形式的关系之辩论。本文接着回顾其所共享的与环境政治的三大连结作为共通脉络：数十年来新自由主义环境治理的根源、气候变迁和能源发展与农业变迁之整体相关议题，以及国族与自然的复杂结合。再者，本文引介本特辑的六大部分：（1）历史与比较性的视角（两篇文章);（2）资源榨取主义、民粹主义，以及威权主义（六篇文章);（3）环境及其治理作为政治代理或安全与公民权的问题场域（七篇文章);（4）种族化与环境政治（五篇文章);（5）环境科学与知识的政治（六篇文章);（6）激进的另类方案（五篇文章)。本文于结论中主张，环境议题、运动与政治，能够且必须作为抵抗威权和反动的民粹政治、以及替代该政治的激进另类愿景之核心。 关键词：威权主义，环境治理，环境政治，民粹主义。

Los años recientes han sido testigos de la recurrente aparición de líderes autoritarios y política populista alrededor del mundo, un desarrollo de seria preocupación política. Este número especial de Annals explora las numerosas y profundas conexiones entre ese giro autoritario y populista, y la política y la gobernanza ambiental, con una gama de ricos estudios de caso que suministran amplia cobertura y perspectivas geográficas, temáticas y teóricas. Esta introducción resume primero las principales características compartidas entre muchos de los regímenes autoritarios y populistas contemporáneos, y reseña los debates que abocan sus relaciones con el liberalismo, el fascismo y las formas más progresistas de populismo. Se hace luego la revisión de las tres principales conexiones con las políticas ambientales, compartidas por todos como contextos comunes: sus raíces en décadas de gobernanza ambiental neoliberal, cambio climático y cuestiones integralmente relacionadas de desarrollo energético y cambio agrícola, y complejas combinaciones de nación y naturaleza. Luego, se presentan las seis secciones de que consta el número especial: (1) perspectivas históricas y comparadas (dos artículos); (2) extractivismo, populismo y autoritarismo (seis artículos); (3) el medio ambiente y su gobernanza como una proxy política o arena para cuestiones de seguridad y ciudadanía (siete artículos); (4) racialización y política ambiental (cinco artículos); (5) políticas sobre ciencia y conocimiento ambiental (seis artículos); y (6) alternativas de progreso (cinco artículos). Se concluye con la sugerencia de que las cuestiones ambientales, movimientos y políticas pueden y deben ser centrales en la resistencia contra la política populista autoritaria y reaccionaria, y a las visiones de alternativas progresistas. Palabras clave: autoritarismo, gobernanza ambiental, política ambiental, populismo.

The rise of authoritarian leaders and populist politics around the world and the multiple configurations in which those associated yet distinct political developments manifest have been the subjects of intense concern and analysis over the past several years. The spatial and temporal extent of this tide is terrifying: Authoritarian and populist political configurations have emerged and either taken control of the state or come increasingly close to doing so in a very large and growing number of polities around the world over the past decade, including many of the world’s largest, most powerful, and most iconic democratic countries. Although the specific trajectories and genealogies of these political formations are always unique at some level, they also share many general features: nationalism articulated and justified in the name of frighteningly exclusive and often racialized iterations of “the people”; the demonization of alleged enemies internal and external; support for and selection of authoritarian leaders who rise to power by exciting such fears and promising simple, direct, often brutal action to protect and strengthen the nation; and contempt for and direct assaults on democratic norms and institutions. At the same time, though, genuinely progressive movements, leaders, and parties have seen increased support over the same period in many countries. Although we hear largely about alleged polarization, what those superficially opposed movements have in common is a rejection of neoliberal hegemony and the articulation of genuine alternatives. That suggests that this could be a moment of hope and opportunity as well, if the left is able to articulate positive radical alternatives that are broad, inclusive, and sustainable.

So much has been widely discussed. What has received far less analytical attention are the myriad connections between authoritarianism, populism, and environmental politics and governance, the topic of this special issue of the Annals, “Environmental Governance in a Populist/Authoritarian Era.” An immediate list would include the ways in which populist and authoritarian politics and regimes often arise directly from tensions between rural and urban areas; assert “blood and soil” claims of indissoluble links between the nation and the biological and physical environment; deploy resurgent tropes of territorialized bodies politic, contagion, and disease; exploit national natural resources to buy political support and underwrite their political agenda; attack environmental protections and activists to give extractive capital free reign; eliminate or attack environmental data and science in a “posttruth” era; and are especially dysfunctional political responses to the security threats, fears, and divisions associated with climate change. On the positive side, environmental movements and politics remain both a critical front of resistance to authoritarian and populist politics in many places and one of the chief sources of visions of progressive alternatives to them. These and other actual and potential relationships between authoritarianism, populism, and environmental politics and governance are explored in this special issue’s six sections, detailed here: (1) historical and comparative perspectives (two articles); (2) extractivism, populism, and authoritarianism (six articles); (3) the environment and its governance as a political proxy or arena for questions of security and citizenship (seven articles); (4) racialization and environmental politics (five articles); (5) politics of environmental science and knowledge (six articles); and (6) progressive alternatives (five articles). First, though, a slightly more in-depth discussion of the origins and contours of the contemporary turn toward authoritarian and populist politics and their relevance to environmental politics and governance is warranted, to put the articles in a common context.

The Rise of Authoritarianism and Populism

Bolsonaro in Brazil. Battulga in Mongolia. Duterte in the Philippines. Erdog˘an in Turkey. Putin in Russia. Modi in India. Xi in China. Trump in the United States. The list of authoritarian leaders who have recently won or consolidated power over their country’s central state, often by deploying or harnessing some variant of populism, is soberingly long and appears to still be growing. In many other countries, perhaps most clearly in Europe, populist and authoritarian parties, leaders, and movements have had growing electoral success and political effect (e.g., Brexit), even if they have not yet been elected to the highest offices. Several things about this trend are noteworthy. First, it spans many usual divides, encompassing countries in every major world region and category. Second, it includes many of the world’s largest and most powerful countries. Third, it includes many of the world’s largest and most regionally symbolic democracies. Fourth, as that implies, this trend has widespread popular support: Although many elections have had some questionable aspects (e.g., in the United States, gerrymandering and voter suppression preclude truly democratic elections), in many instances it is clear that these leaders and their parties really were chosen by at least very large portions of their electorates.

Authoritarianism and populism can each take many forms, be allied with nominally right or left politics, and articulate with each other in multiple ways (Hall 1980, 1985; Bello 2018; Borras 2018). In the wave of authoritarian and populist politics we are currently experiencing, each national instance, of course, has vitally important specificities and a trajectory that is unique at a sufficient level of resolution. Yet, the political figures and regimes mentioned share a great many common features, as many have noted (Bessner and Sparke 2017; Fraser 2017; Snyder 2017; Albright 2018; Bello 2018; Bigger and Dempsey 2018; Collard et al. 2018; Scoones et al. 2018). They advance militant, often economically protectionist forms of nationalism, insisting on the precedence of national self-interest and sovereignty over shared global interests and institutions. They use bellicose rhetoric and gestures in theatrical efforts to project strength. They promise to take quick and decisive action on highlighted issues, in contrast to liberal democratic administrations portrayed as weak, passive, and indecisive. They make the central populist move of claiming to speak and act in the name of and with the support of “the people,” who are typically identified in nativist, xenophobic, and often explicitly racialized terms. Following closely from that, they often identify internal enemies—ethnic or religious minorities, immigrants, refugees, drug users—as scapegoats and targets for public anger. They use populist rhetorical tropes of resentful antielitism, suspicion of experts and complexity, and celebration of direct action to promise simple, immediate solutions to complex, long-term problems. They present themselves as being, and often truly are, willing and even eager to use violence against opponents internal and external. They engage in direct and indirect assaults on the norms and institutions of democratic societies, including the rule of law, freedom of the press, and opponents’ rights of speech and assembly—directly through the centralization and consolidation of power in the executive branch, efforts to test or even actively subvert resistant institutions, and punishment of political critics or opponents and indirectly through the contempt that they exhibit for norms, institutions, and people who oppose them. Moreover, they claim and celebrate a direct connection with “the people” that purportedly bypasses just such potential obstacles. Alongside these many commonalties, they exhibit one last, somewhat ironic common feature: an opportunistic lack of ideological coherence or consistency.

This tide of authoritarian populism has prompted much soul-searching on the left and a few key analytical debates. What is the relationship between the authoritarian populist turn and decades of neoliberalism? Is the turn we are seeing more accurately labeled as fascism or as a clear step in that direction? Finally, is populism inherently conservative or are genuinely progressive populisms possible? A brief sketch of these debates is necessary before considering how each relates to questions of environmental politics and governance.

The politics and political economy of the relationships between neoliberalism and the turn toward authoritarian and populist regimes are clearly complex: Many of these regimes came to power on a platform of reversing major elements of neoliberal globalization, yet they are often continuing to pursue and deepen neoliberal policies in many areas. A number of articles in this special issue examine precisely that tension. Whether such contradictions reflect a coherent underlying strategy or constellation of interests remains unclear in many cases (see Bessner and Sparke 2017; Scoones et al. 2018), although an argument can be made that maximizing capitalists’ flexibility and accumulation appears to be a consistent principle through these trajectories, one pursued through different scalar strategies at different moments in time. Most analysts agree, though, that the turn toward authoritarian and populist politics is directly rooted in the failures and successes of neoliberal globalization. Starting as far back as the 1970s but with pronounced acceleration in the 1990s, decades of increasing economic and institutional integration failed to deliver the promised broad-based economic growth, producing instead wrenching economic restructuring, deindustrialization, intensified competition, and accelerating economic inequality that left many workers, sectors, and regions behind. These trends were dramatically intensified during and after the financial crisis beginning in 2008 and the increased volatility and imposition of austerity that followed it. It is entirely understandable that many people felt betrayed and sought leadership that would clearly prioritize their self-interests over some promised-yet-never-realized greater good whose fruits seemed in practice to accrue entirely to the already wealthy. At the same time, however, it became clear how deeply neoliberal ideology’s delegitimation of the state as a potentially legitimate or competent owner, manager, or representative of public goods and interests had taken hold: Even as people demanded recognition of their needs and desires, many took for granted that the state could never truly represent “the people” or even their interests and so turned instead to charismatic leaders promising to repudiate elites, including those currently in power. In a widely cited piece, Fraser (2017) diagnosed this conjuncture as representing the failures of what she termed “progressive neoliberalism,” which she defined as a Gramscian hegemonic bloc centered on an alliance between certain fractions of capital (notably finance capital but also other technology- and information-centered industries) and cosmopolitan elites, who used a superficial commitment to the politics of recognition and meritocracy to mask neglect of or direct assaults on the interests of the industrial working class and many rural populations, a position further justified by the cultural denigration of the latter groups as backward and reactionary. Fraser argued that perhaps the key feature of the current moment is that protest and resentment against these decades-long trends are now producing electoral effects, through the replacement or dramatic realignment of major political leaders and parties.

The electoral successes of authoritarian and populist leaders, parties, and movements, most but not all strongly right wing, bring us to another major debate: What, if any, are the inherent politics and trajectories of such formations? In a nutshell, would these current political developments be more precisely or accurately characterized as fascism or ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Citation Information
• 1 Introduction: Authoritharianism, Populism, and the Environment: Comparative Experiences, Insights, and Perspectives
• PART I Historical and Comparative Perspectives
• PART II Extractivism, Populism, and Authoritarianism
• PART III Environment as Political Proxy and Arena for Security and Citizenship
• PART IV Racialization and Environmental Politics
• PART V Politics of Environmental Science and Knowledge
• PART VI Progressive Alternatives
• Index