Political Legitimacy, Authoritarianism, and Climate Change

Abstract

Abstract This chapter examines how climate (in)action bears on political legitimacy, and whether authoritarian climate emergency powers could ever be considered legitimate. It begins by distinguishing between “foundational legitimacy,” which pertains to the ability to ensure safety and security, and “contingent legitimacy,” which typically requires democracy, rights, or, more generally, that political power be acceptable to those subjected to it. While under normal conditions foundational and contingent legitimacy are perfectly compatible, in emergency situations conflicts can and often do arise. A salient example of this was the COVID-19 pandemic, during which severe limitations on free movement and association became legitimate techniques of government. Politically catastrophic climate change poses an even graver threat to public safety. Consequently, the chapter argues, legitimacy may permit, or even require, a similarly authoritarian approach. After defending this claim, the chapter considers ways in which confronting the climate crisis may precipitate an enduring reconfiguration of contingent legitimacy.