Climate Change and Populist Revenge

What did the political founders of the United States and Plato have in common? They didn’t trust direct democracy. Specifically, they feared the abject tyranny of the masses. Why? Because most people are politically asinine — they have little clue of the right approach to governance and thus are prone to support dumb policies. Philip Converse, a political scientist who studied the American electorate, declared them as “idiots” in one of his publications because the opinions carried by most voters were derived from the cues given by the elites they voted for. In other words, voters didn’t have an opinion, they simply followed the thoughts and ideas of their political leaders. Can you see why this might be a problem? If a person can’t think independently and skeptically then they risk buying into any number of bullshit arguments sprinkled by euphemisms and unrealistic promises. Hence, for example, Trump.

One can’t blame Converse, the Founding Fathers, or Plato for thinking disparagingly about direct democracy. It can work but direct democracy requires an objective, intelligent, and educated public that can tell the difference between valid policy ideas and wishful thinking. Moreover, can you tell when a political leader is corrupt? Observe our current government; led by Trump and run by parties (both Democrats and Republicans) who, despite preaching a mission of public good, often pass laws in the service of special interest groups —many of these interests are too narrow to benefit the public good. Do you think the majority individuals who voted for Trump are getting their fare share of rewards? Besides the millionaire supporters of Trump, no.

I hope the foregoing context will help you understand why the catastrophe that may arise from climate change could result in the unfortunate resurgence of dictatorships.

States never began as democratic. It was urbanization and the momentous uprising of courageous people who were fed-up with providing wealth to their rulers while suffering abuse from authoritarian oppression. Political leadership relies on the support (or compliance) from the masses. It doesn’t matter if you’re running the United States or ruling over Jordan — if the public stops functioning for you, believing in your legitimacy, your power will stand on a podium with no foundation. Your power will collapse.

Next up, droughts. Yep, droughts! The genesis of the Syrian civil war was linked with a drought that ravaged the agricultural industry of an already politically repressed minority group. Globally, we’re losing land to arid climates. This will create local and global economic pressures. Commodity prices will rise and minority agrarian groups, without major assistance from their governments, will either starve or rebel. You will also witness mass migrations from areas that become unbearable. Temperatures may rise to 50 degrees Celsius. Do you think xenophobia will cease to be a problem?

Such pressures could mark the beginning of the end for democratic institutions. People will blame the misery on those responsible for ensuring their safety — i.e., their leaders and government. It’s an easy argument to make; instead of working for the public good, finding solutions, the corrupt politicians were serving their own interest. And since the choice is between a different regime or anarchy, people will likely attempt to change the leadership by electing a strong-armed problem solver or supporting a revolution that promises radical change and prosperity to all. Hitler was elected and Lenin, later Stalin, emerged as leaders by revolt. In chaotic times, a demagogue who promises a strong hand and a solution is attractive to a population with amnesia, political stupidity, and fear.

Alternatively, a government may provide solutions and help their citizens manage the problems associated with climate change. Or the military may stage a coup d'état against the leader to rescue the core elites from losing their privileged positions of wealth, such as in Egypt with General Sisi’s takeover after Mohamed Morsi, with his incompetence, invoked a second wave of uprisings. By signaling a change, such coups preempt grassroots revolutionary momentum. Whatever happens, much will be determined by the whims of public opinion, who will undoubtedly lack the skill in selecting the right leader. The average person, without expert knowledge in politics, will have a difficult time telling the difference between leaders and demagogues. You should hope that a Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., or an analogous leader will appear during hard times to guide the masses toward the right direction, of better governance without authoritarianism.

Related posts:

When it comes to competitive gaming, having the right equipment can make a significant difference in your performance. One of the most important pieces of equipment for competitive gaming is a good…

I was not sure if that was the right thing to say. I said it because anything would do to break that terrible silent atmosphere. I had only seen similar situations in the movies and series that I…