Heinzpeter Znoj*
We are currently experiencing an upsurge in authoritarian regimes and government styles and, simultaneously, a threat to the fragile project of global development towards environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable ways of life. In recent years, international relations have been openly dominated by the power politics and self-interest of the major powers, while the rules-based world order – within whose institutional framework measures for managing the climate crisis and sustainable development are negotiated – has been put on the defensive.
Further, at the domestic level, there are countless examples of the ease with which elites in authoritarian states are asserting their economic and political interests, not least over those of local populations and their long-term livelihoods. In democracies, by contrast, there are political processes and strong legal systems, which can protect the common interests of the whole population. At first glance, then, there appears to be a contradiction between sustainability and authoritarianism, whereas democracy and liberal legal systems are fundamentally compatible with sustainability as defined by the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
A mixed record for democratic sustainability policies
In truth, however, the link between sustainability and the liberal democratic order is not as clear-cut as it might initially seem, as shown by recent research on the topic. Eco-fascism also selectively promotes certain sustainability goals, but pursues them through authoritarian, inhumane policies. For example, state and private nature reserves are often imposed against the interests of local populations in authoritarian countries, so that environmental sustainability goals are reached – but social sustainability goals are abandoned.
The link between democracy and sustainability is also called into question in view of the largely mixed track record of democratic sustainability policies. Parliamentary and even direct-democratic legislative processes by no means guarantee the protection of long-term livelihoods from short-term special interests. In Switzerland, for example, voters accepted the counterproposal to the climate protection initiative, but rejected initiatives on clean drinking water and pesticide-free farming.
In authoritarian regimes, sustainability can, at best, be achieved on a sectoral basis
By contrast, authoritarian regimes can arguably pursue environmental sustainability goals more efficiently. China, for example, has managed to become the global market leader in solar and battery technology thanks to its state-directed industrial policy. It has also driven the shift away from fossil fuels in the motor vehicle sector more successfully than Western democracies.
Nevertheless, I believe that sustainability can, at best, be achieved on a sectoral basis in authoritarian regimes, and that a systemic transformation towards sustainability consistent with the SDGs requires a liberal democratic system of government. I wish to illustrate this with the example of the palm oil industry in Indonesia, where the lowering of environmental and labour standards can be directly linked to a return to authoritarian structures.
The Indonesian palm oil industry
In their 2021 book Plantation Life, authors Tania Li and Pujo Semedi described how large-scale oil palm plantations in Kalimantan have not only monopolized the economy in entire regions, but also dominate politics and the administration. By funding election campaigns, plantation operators determine who holds key positions in local governance and, in return, secure benefits such as the granting of land concessions. Further, they ensure the cooperation of local authorities in plantation areas by paying government officials a second salary. In this way, they ensure that their own interests are prioritized over those of local populations.
Privileged by the state through economic policies and colonial-era land laws, these plantations are backed by substantial capital from national and international investors. Spanning tens of thousands of hectares of land and employing thousands of workers and subcontractors, they are simply too powerful for the remaining rural and small-town population to exert any significant influence on local resource policy within their catchment area.
Autocratic conditions despite formal democracy
While Indonesia’s large-scale monocultural, export-oriented cultivation leads to economic growth that is measurable in monetary terms – and from which the local population also benefits in the form of wage labour and markets – it destroys the original biodiversity and leads to long-term soil depletion and contamination of water with pesticide residues. As a result, large-scale plantations not only restrict the local population’s economic and political agency, but also undermine their long-term food security.
Although Indonesia is formally a democracy, the extreme power imbalances found in its plantation areas effectively create autocratic conditions. This is especially evident in West Papua, where the indigenous population is being forcibly displaced from their land by the military in order to create space for plantations and the extractive industries. While social and environmental sustainability are essentially impossible under these circumstances, plantation operators in these areas were nonetheless granted sustainability certifications by the industry’s leading labelling bodies.
However, ensuring operators’ eligibility for these certifications required Indonesia’s government to drastically lower national labour and environmental standards in its 2020 omnibus bill. The passing of this legislative package, under pressure from Indonesia’s mighty palm oil industry, is now viewed as a turning point towards renewed overt authoritarianism in the country.
Commons offer opportunities for the sustainable use of resources
In authoritarian regimes, affected populations are unable to have their needs heard or met – either politically or legally. They are powerless to do anything but accept the destructive impact of plantations and extractive industries on their livelihoods and future prospects. By contrast, research on commons shows that where local populations themselves manage the use of collective natural resources – such as land, wildlife, and water – it is more likely that these resources will be managed sustainably. This is the case provided that these populations develop locally adapted regulations autonomously, or make use of the state’s legal and political framework to do so.
Sustainability requires the involvement of the majority of the population
Ultimately, long-term sustainable use of local resources is in the clear – if not to say natural – interest of local populations. That interest can be derailed, however, when it is overpowered by the short-term exploitative interests of dominant internal and external actors. For sustainability to be achieved as a common interest both locally and globally, the majority of the population must have a say in determining and enforcing the rules governing resource use – rather than leaving the formulation of such rules to the special interests of a powerful minority of autocrats and oligarchs. In this way, closer inspection shows the fundamental incompatibility of sustainability and authoritarianism – and confirms the better match between sustainability and democratic conditions.
*Heinzpeter Znoj is professor emeritus of social anthropology. One of his main research areas was the society and history of Indonesia. From 2017 to 2023, he served as President of the CDE Board.
