The discussion was based on Professor Jackson’s central argument that building a new economic model fit for a low carbon world is ‘the most urgent task of our times’.

There was some discussion at the event about the extent to which getting to this economy ’fit for purpose’ depends on the state of our democracy.

In his book, Professor Jackson argues that “..we must ask searching questions about the balance of the institutions that characterize modern society. Do they promote competition or cooperation? Do they reward self-servicing behaviour or people who sacrifice their own gain to serve others? What signals do government, schools, the media, religious and community institutions send out to people? Which behaviours are supported by public investments and infrastructures and which are discouraged?“

Democracy itself has to be part of this enquiry. Indeed, a level-headed discussion on how to ensure that democracy is ‘fit for purpose’ in terms of its ability to deliver sustainable development needs to be given greater prominence in the discussion on progress to low carbon futures.

Looking at transformation of the economy without looking in tandem at democratic adaptation doesn’t make sense.

Any conversation on getting to an economy ‘fit for purpose’ will falter and fall unless some of the wider challenges of democratic decision-making for sustainable development are addressed.

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that the obstacles to economic transformation for sustainable development don’t lie only with economic actors such as businesses or with the pressures of international competition – but with the preferences of individual voters themselves.

For example, elected representatives can find it uncomfortable to move significantly ahead of the  curve of public opinion on environmental issues. David Miliband’s recently reported lamentations on public apathy about climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen Climate Summit reflect a growing debate about the relatioship between political leadership and public opinion on climate change.

Yet there are also some issues in the UK (capital punishment the most obvious) where considerations of morality or human decency allow politicians to pay less attention to opinion polls or public opinion.

Some groundbreaking if controversial environmental policy measures (London’s Congestion Charge is one example) have been implemented on the basis of clear election promises, with public consultation focusing on implementation rather than the principle of introducing  a measure.

A report on the history of the London Congestion charge explains that “The campaign for Mayor of London began in 1999 with four main candidates from each of the main political parties and an independent, Ken Livingstone. Of these candidates three made election promises to introduce a congestion charging scheme in Central London. Although this was a brave decision because congestion charging could be seen as a notoriously difficult policy to sell to voters, at the same time it demonstrated the high level of political commitment to the policy. However, for Ken Livingstone, this political gamble paid off and in May 2000 he was elected as Mayor of London.“

It would be very wrong to take these examples as special pleading for ‘less engagement with the public’ on environmental policy to facilitate implementation of controversial policy proposals. Far from it. For there is also evidence that when people are given full facts and a chance to deliberate before arriving at conclusions, they express greater support for action on issues like climate change than some recent opinion polls might otherwise suggest. 

A significant part of the problem – to the extent that opinion polls show that people may in effect prefer economic growth over sustainable development – may lie with how members of the public are invited to engage with formal democratic processes, and with how elected representatives themselves view the balance between visionary leadership, consultation, direct democracy (for example through referenda), and public participation of various kinds.

If we take seriously the challenge of pursuing an ‘economy fit for purpose’, we must also work out how to arrive at a ‘democracy fit for purpose’.

One answer is to point to existing examples of innovations designed to help parliaments to integrate long-term thinking into their decisions.

There are three examples and one idea that I want to highlight here.

In Israel, the Knesset passed legislation to enable the creation of a Commission for Future Generations, a non-political entity which operated from 2001 until 2006.

The Commission’s functions lay in four areas: providing opinions on bills, secondary legislation and regulation of concern to future generations; providing parliament with recommendations on any matter the head of the commission (called a Commissioner) considers to be of importance to future generations, and providing parliament with advice on matters of special interest regarding the future generations.

Former Deputy Commissioner Nira Lamay writes that “Our motto was that while the political world was busy with issues of defence and war, we would prepare for the “day after” peace, when future generations would have clean water to drink and clean air to breathe”.

According to a post by one blogger, Uzi Benziman, the demise of the Commission may have stemmed from the nature of its challenge to ‘business as usual’ politics: “[t]he institution ceased operating because the tenure of the first commissioner, retired judge Shlomo Shoham, ended, and influential people in the Knesset argued that the commission was unnecessary, ineffective and wasted public funds.

Regardless of whether there was merit to these arguments, the commission’s demise suggests that the Knesset could not bear its existence: The MKs are affected by day-to-day events and tangible interests, and a body that considers the broader horizon bothers them.”

The Finnish parliament’s Committee for the Future is charged with carrying on an “active and initiative-generating dialogue with the Government on major future problems and means of solving them”.

The Committee’s brochure acknowledges that “since the problems of the future and above all its opportunities cannot be studied through traditional parliamentary procedures and work methods alone, the Committee has been given the specific task of also following and using the results of futures research. Indeed, the Committee can be said to be making policy on the future, because its goal is not research, but rather policy.”

The Committee was established in 1993 on a temporary basis and acquired permanent status in 2000. Its seventeen elected members are all parliamentarians. The Committee for the Future’s reports include several on the future of democracy which are invaluable resources in their field.

Another of the Committee for the Future’s responsibilities is to prepare Parliament’s response to the Government’s Report on the Future during each electoral period. The theme of the futures report covering the parliamentary term 2007–2011 is climate and energy, putting the Committee on track to make a further contribution to strengthening democratic processes for sustainable development.

Most recently in Hungary, Parliament decided in 2007 to establish a new independent watchdog function; the Parliamentary Commissioner for Future Generations (also known as the ‘green ombudsman’), whose role is to safeguard the constitutional right of Hungarian citizens to a healthy environment.

The independent Commissioner, who is elected by Parliament but is not a parliamentarian, is one of four Parliamentary Ombudsmen. Others deal with civil rights, data protection and freedom of information, and the rights of national and ethnic minorities.

There are three pillars in the Commissioner’s work: investigating complaints relating to a broad range of environmental issues; acting as a policy advocate for sustainability issues across all relevant fields of national and local legislation and public policy; and undertaking or promoting research projects targeting the long term sustainability of human societies.

In the UK, independent watchdog the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) works to put sustainable development at the heart of government policy. The SDC has shortlisted the notion of a ‘Congress for the Future’ as one of nineteen ‘breakthrough ideas’ for sustainable development selected following an open competition.

A recent SDC report introduces the idea of a Congress for the Future in the following way:

“Imagine… the UK with long-term thinking enshrined at the heart of our democratic processes, raising awareness, creating political space, and generating action on the biggest issues of our time. The Congress for the Future is a way of giving adequate attention to the long-term in what has become an overwhelmingly short-term political world. It will act as a counterweight to that short-termism and to the media-inspired ’something must be done’ quick fixes. Without such a mechanism, is there any way that we can use sustainable development to tackle issues like prosperity, peak oil or climate change?”

The basic idea, says Sustainable Development Commissioner Lindsey Colbourne, “is to create a special Congress, convened by Parliament every year, to help build broad agreement and provide direction on long-term questions. One or more issues in need of public debate will be put before each Congress, either by the Government of the day or by MPs in response to public petition. Randomly-selected citizens and stakeholders will then engage with the issues in an informed, deliberative process, supported by a secretariat to monitor progress”.

Very different approaches, but each concerned to ensure long-term thinking within the democratic process. The fact that there have already been real innovations in this area is encouraging: we don’t need to start from scratch.

Further inspiration is available in a report from Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic. It’s called Models for Protecting the Environment for Future Generations, and it was published in October 2008.