James Bohman on Intergenerational Democracy

 WPES February 12, 2010


Introduction
What do the citizens of a democracy owe their descendants?  That's the central question in James Bohman's paper, "Intergenerational Democracy: Environmental Insecurity as Intergenerational Domination"  Bohman, who spent much of his career defending the benefits of democracy over other systems of government, has now turned his focus to the limitations and drawbacks of democracy.  Last year he presented a paper to WPES which argued that democracies are no better and potentially even worse at addressing the problems of illegal immigration.  This year, he is working on the problems that democracies face over long spans of time, namely, how the mistakes of one generation can restrict the choices and capacities of those that follow.  In this, Bohman was inspired by Edmund Burke, who in discussing the French Revolution, argued that any generation needs to see itself not as the sole master of democratic power and that sovereignty must be shared with future generations.


Bohman thinks that Burke's ideas have a special relevance when considered in light of global warming, since climate change has consequences that are "very bad and very difficult to reverse."  Assuming that the worst predictions of global warming scientists are true, the present, polluting generation "dominates future institutions by disregarding their interests as a future, temporary possessor of power in democratic institutions."


Respondent 
Bohman's respondent was WashU's own Ian MacMullen.  MacMullen broke the paper down into four key themes:

1. Conceptualizing the problem of intergenerational democracy as a challenge to democratic theory.
2. Drawing Connections and analogies between intergenerational domination and other intragenerational forms of domination.
3. Illustrating the theoretical point as it applies to environmental policy.
4. Critiquing various possible solutions to the problem of intergenerational domination.

MacMullen summarized the central claim of the paper is that democracies can enact laws with irreversible harms but that this is undemocratic after taking into account the interests of future generations.  Unfortunately, the most intuitive solutions to the problem seem inadequate.  A constitutional solution, for instance, is always subject to the problem of amending the constitution.  

Because of this, MacMullen commented that the paper seems to imply that an institutional solution seems impossible.  That, however, leads to the problematic conclusion that the interests of future generations are relegated to a minor detail that present deliberators are meant to be conscious of when making policy.  In other words, intergenerational domination might just be "another illustration of the need for deliberative procedures."  MacMullen was left unsure of how deliberative procedures would need to substantively differ in order to properly address the problem.  In his words, "is it just that they're supposed to think differently, or is there actually some concrete institution that will need to be different in order to properly share sovereignty?"  Bohman stated that there were institutional remedies that could be useful, but that none of the ones he has thus far examined divide power sufficiently.

General Discussion

Matt Mancini raised the important point of how the present generation is supposed to know what the needs of future generations will be.  Mancini said that he we would likely be astounded at what 19th century, slave-owning America expected 21st century America to need.  Ironically, the choices that a country makes in order to protect its descendants could very plausibly end up making them worse off.  Bohman conceded that this ignorance was a problem, but said that certain issues, like environmental catastrophe, seemed to be more clear cut that others.

Carl Wellman asked a more fundamental question about whether groups which don't have a clear definition and are unorganized can have unique rights.  In other words, since future generations do not have a defined boundary (as they do not yet exist) there can be no group rights but only individual rights, which seem to be irrelevant in the case of individuals which do not yet exist.  Bohman argued that the citizens of the future were still a group and a corporate body.

Chad Flanders questioned the paper's framing in terms of nondomination as opposed to merely harm or injustice.  In his view, even if we ruin the planet, that is not a form of control over opportunities so much as a form of harm by limiting them.  Here Bohman simply dissented.

-Greg Allen