The relationship between democracy and environment is subject to major controversies across the world. Some scientists find that democracy has a positive impact in reducing environmental degradation. While other scholars and researchers claim that democracy tends to accelerate environmental degradation. By using deforestation and habitat-loss rates as a proxy for environmental degradation, it suggests that both sides might be right to a large extent. However, the quantitative analysis has three important outcomes… First of all - there are both positive & negative evidences of relationship between deforestation and democracy at varying levels. Second - those countries in democratic transition experience the highest rates of environmental degradation compared to non-democratic nations and much more evolved or mature democracies. Third - while trying to explain environmental degradation rates, democracy has much larger explanatory power than just income. Therefore, the third result implies that in reducing deforestation rates the emphasis should not only be on economic development but even more on democratization.
For a long time the relationship between democracy and environmental protection / degradation has been subject to fierce, yet inconclusive debates including other issues such as political sciences, natural resource management, ecological studies and across socio-economic fabric. Controversies mainly focus on two major aspects. First - researchers & scientists disagree how important democracy is in explaining the various levels of environmental degradation. Long ago it was concluded that democracy had almost no impact on national pollution levels of Carbon-di-oxide. However, in 1998 another scientist also found an insignificant relation between democracy and few environmental indicators such as dissolved oxygen demand, fecal coliform and particulates emissions, which were once controlled for discussing income inequality. Others have discovered significant relationships between levels of democracy and environmental protection. Second - among the group that considers democracy to be an important variable in explaining environmental deterioration, there exists diverging evidence how democracy relates to environmental degradation. Several scholars such as Payne (1995), Barrett and Graddy (2000), Farzin and Bond (2006) and Torras and Boyce (1998), argue that democratization makes citizens well-informed, better-organized and better equipped to protest and thus makes states and political entrepreneurs more responsive & responsible towards demands for environmental protection. Others have provided contrasting evidence showing that democratization has increased the pace of environmental degradation.
Most scholars from both sides implicitly or explicitly model a linear relationship between levels of democracy and environmental intrusions, whether it has a positive or negative correlation. The field of deforestation has proven to be a scientific battleground for these positions. On one hand it is found that democracy has a positive impact in reducing deforestation. They argued that the democratization through the instrument of political and civil liberties are powerful in protecting the environment and the resource-base. Policy makers in democratic countries whose citizens are concerned about environmental problems will be required to demonstrate stronger environmental commitment to address these concerns. On the other hand, it is found that political democracy increases the pace of environmental degradation rather than slowing it down. It was also argued that concerning budget constraints, democracies may not be responsive to environmental imperatives but to other more pressing issues of economic and sustainable livelihoods. Also, corporations and environmental groups can fight each other to a standstill, leaving a decision-making vacuum.
Furthermore it was said that it might be easier in autocracies than in democracies to constrain environmentally damaging economic activities as well as population growth. It is most likely that income measures (GDP) are the intervening variables, and most studies control their models for income levels. We need to find ways to explain these contrasting findings. Different interpretations and explanations have been given, among which the role of control variables (mainly GDP) or the poor quality of our indicators for democracy and/or environmental outcomes. Environmental degradation rates would peak at the transition process to democracy. In investigating the relation between economic development and environmental degradation, scholars have coped with similar contrasting evidence: some found a positive relation between economic development and environmental deterioration, others a negative one. Therefore, it is high time that, we, as a Democracy, understand people's rights, needs and availability of resources to sustain the future for everyone in this country and for the coming generations.
