ABSTRACT
Is there something about being a democrat that entails being an environmentalist? To what extent can democratic theory be pushed to green conclusions? If we are to deal with these questions, we must first jettison the view that ‘there is no democratic theory-there are only democratic theories’ (Dahl 1956:1). I begin with the assumption that democracy is a three-dimensional and self-sufficient political concept. According to this assumption we can build up a single-best theory of democracy without recourse to liberals, socialists, anarchists and environmentalists. This theory shows us the inescapable core of what professed democrats ought to believe. If the theory works, we can explore with confidence the degree to which there is a logical compulsion on democrats to be environmentalists, and what kind of environmentalists they should be. In the early part of the chapter, I shall defend the view that democracy ought to be understood as a political system in which government responds fully to the felt wishes of citizens. The more responsive a government is, the more democratic it is. Although I regard this as the best way to define democracy, those who do not share my view can at least regard it as providing us with a strong test case of the links between democracy and environmentalism, since this definition leaves no room for governments to pursue substantive goals-such as environmental goals-unless a majority of citizens votes for them. From this unpromising base, I shall argue that there are democratic rights, and that there is a case for a democratic right not to be harmed in certain ways by certain environmental risks. The case for such a democratic right is not watertight. Various objections are canvassed and assessed in the final part of the chapter. No full closure of the subject is intended; the chapter is a conjecture on the power of arguments that democrats must be environmentalists.
