The Implications for Democracy: Single Issue Politics versus Corporate Power

Abstract

For a well-established, and well-used (and abused) concept ‘democracy’ lacks clarity. Accordingly, it is possible to criticise what happened in 1995 and 1996 as ‘undemocratic’ or to view it as the practice of effective democracy. This ambiguity is not aided by a tradition of discussing democracy as an ideal rather than at the level of practice. We tend to discuss democracy, rather high–mindedly, in terms of active and well-informed individuals carefully choosing between alternatives: a de facto picture would concede public ignorance and stress the role of competing, self-interested, groups. Peters and Barker (1993, p 1) have commented that whereas once the concept of democracy implied primarily having elections at appointed times and allowing winners to govern until the next election, democracy has now acquired a more continuous character; and receiving advice helps governments to appear more open and democratic. So, in modern times, a requirement of an efficient and a democratic decision-making system seems to be that there be direct involvement and agreement of those who are principally affected.

Greenpeace has won a stunning, and possibly seminal, victory over Shell UK and the British government … A voluntarily funded pressure group (albeit with more members in the UK than the Labour Party and a better balance sheet than the Conservatives) has single-handedly taken on one of the world’s great multinationals – often thought to be beyond the reach of national sovereignty – and given it a bloody nose … It is no exaggeration to say that environmental politics may never be the same again … Greenpeace has demonstrated the awesome political power it can now wield world-wide (Guardian, 22 June 1995).

Blackmail succeeded against well proven scientific effort. It was a victory, if you like, for single-issue politics at least in the short term (Tim Eggar, Battle for Brent Spar 1995).

If you want my judgement, we will leave behind this form of the hydrocarbon phase of human development, and still see trillions of barrels still in the ground, in much the same way that we are exiting coal, knowing that there is more coal in the ground that we have taken out (C. Gibson Smith, BP-Amoco, Green Futures Magazine, March/April 1999).