There has been a misplaced focus of attention upon an academic paper by Ross Mittiga, in the American Political Science Review, December 6, 2021. The paper puts the line that dealing with the alleged “climate crisis,” could require governments to adopt an authoritarian approach, which Mittiga believes is justified in the light of the Covid mandates. He holds that climate change is even more serious, hence even more drastic measures than we have seen with Covid could be justified. We maintain that the Covid mandates are not justified, so the alleged “logical” link to climate change is broken. It is highly likely that the authoritarian measures anyway would do nothing for the environment, and everything for consolidating global power of the ruling elites, just as Covid did, and continues to do.
Abstract
Is authoritarian power ever legitimate? The contemporary political theory literature—which largely conceptualizes legitimacy in terms of democracy or basic rights—would seem to suggest not. I argue, however, that there exists another, overlooked aspect of legitimacy concerning a government’s ability to ensure safety and security. While, under normal conditions, maintaining democracy and rights is typically compatible with guaranteeing safety, in emergency situations, conflicts between these two aspects of legitimacy can and often do arise. A salient example of this is the COVID-19 pandemic, during which severe limitations on free movement and association have become legitimate techniques of government. Climate change poses an even graver threat to public safety. Consequently, I argue, legitimacy may require a similarly authoritarian approach. While unsettling, this suggests the political importance of climate action. For if we wish to avoid legitimating authoritarian power, we must act to prevent crises from arising that can only be resolved by such means.