Real Life Situtations
In Mainland China, demonstrations and protests are not allowed. The government can put you into jail if you overtly oppose any policies from the Central Government. Therefore, in the 1989 Beijing Tiananmen Square Incident, thousands of people died just because they tried to voice out their discontents and opinions about the Government. Almost at the same time, Dai Qing, a former journalist, overtly opposed the building of the Three Gorges Dam in Yangtze River by publishing a book, was arrested, accused of being an "instigator" of the "turmoil." These prosecutions are frequently vague and ambiguous but the Chinese Government does use such to control the society. These situations do make me believe that democracy is the major factor for any Conflict Model to run smoothly. I would not say the Conflict Model can only work in democratic societies as China does change a lot a lot since the 1989 Tiananmen Square Incident. However, the price was far too high for the changes! Therefore, a democratic society that tolerates oppositions would enhance reforms of the society.
Hong Kong is a very unique place. It was under the British colonisation for more than one and a half century. Hong Kong was/is a quasi-democratic society which allowed/(s) demonstrations and protests and comments on the Government. The 1989 Beijing Tiananmen Square Incident induced millions of people demonstrating on the street before and after the Massacre. This phenomenon has seldom happened in the history of Hong Kong.
Hong Kong was not a country, it was a colony. Even after the returning back to China in 1997, Hong Kong is still not a country. It is a part of China with an identity of Special Administrative Regions. Hong Kong people are smart and fast learners, their efficiency is of world class famous. However, Hong Kong people do not care about much but profit-seeking. For older generations who were under the British colonisation, people were not educated to be critical. For these people, the concept of ‘Country’ is very vague and ‘unrealistic’. For the new generations who were born after 1997, people are not critical either as the educational system is monitored by the Chinese Central Government. Therefore, people in Hong Kong were not usually trained to be analytical and fault-finding.
The 1989 Incident provoked the altruism of the Hong Kong people because of the deaths of numerous people. Also, people did concern that similar plight would happen to them after the returning of Hong Kong to China. Sadly to say, not many people care about that anymore today especially Hong Kong is facing economic hardships. Apart from political impotence, a lack of good social welfare system is the reason behind. For many people in Hong Kong, they have to earn every cent in order to secure their future. The inadequate social welfare system pushes people to be money-oriented. Therefore, many people are having attitudes of ‘Not-My-Back-Yard’ towards environmental issues. Unless and until the environmental issues affect their livelihoods, standard of livings, etc. they would voice out their discontent. However, with the quasi-democratic political system, there are always a series of long battles for anyone who wants to push environmental agendas forward!
In sum, factors of democracy, analytical skills among people in a society and a good social welfare system will help run a Conflict Model smoothly thus contribute to sustainable development of a society.
Having lived in Central Africa and travelled overseas, I can see how easy it is to take Australia for granted. We don't know how lucky we are. In places like Africa, Afghanistan or China like you mentioned, activists or groups who speak out are often not tolerated by the controlling government and sadly may be jailed, tortured or killed (which to us is unthinkable). It is interesting like you noted, that this often occurs in situations of non-democratic government, poor social structures and high corruption. Thus, the conflict model appears to be non-existent, however, I don't think that means it doesn't exist? I feel it does exist, and is reflected in the way people feel and think, but sadly is perhaps less effective in forcing sustainable change due to their particular institutions.
In our democratic society, we don't have war or civil war etc, and we are free to voice our opinions and generally do so peacefully (peaceful protests) which is acceptable. Here, the conflict model is very operational and highly effective (without going to the extremes of war or rebellion) and has proven to be valuable in steering government legislation towards environmental sustainability. This perhaps is due to our democracy, our welfare and social systems. I therefore agree that there is a correlation between the effectiveness of the conflict model and the type of government and social structure a country has as to how it will progress environmentally. I do however believe, whether suppressed or not, the conflict model exists in all societies.
Like Dai Qing who I mentioned is still active in China even after repetitive and continuous persecution. She is now world-known and should be under certain protection of the U.S. It is sad to see my country needs a third party to intervene for better future. Yet, it is progressing at least!
The spirit of these activists are vital for reforms in any societies. Even in a stable country like Australia, most people are still having "Not-My-Back-Yard" attitudes towards environmental issues which is rather shocking to me.
As far as I know Australia is having freshwater crisis in 20 years because of the dying of Murray River. It is rather interesting to see how reluctant the Government budgets on this issue, but rather putting loads of money on other issues. Is the sky show last night sponsored by the Government? Also, it is really interesting to see how many people are ignorant on this issues and still wash their cars and do their gardening with running hoses, etc.!
I guess in every society, there needs to have some people with higher ideals seeing the greater good who sacrifice their private time or even their personal safety to point out the inadequacies of the societies!!
Given the current water crisis we are facing (like the Murray River) we are still very reluctant to 'sacrifice' too much of what we are used to like having long showers et cetera, even though I am deeply concerned and want to aid sustainability.
It may take more severe legislation and government intervention to force these changes on us to 'place it IN our back yards' so we can appreciate the consequences of our actions more. This doesn't mean I want my life or anyone else's to be tougher, but unfortunately is that what its going to take for us to change our ways and save our resources? Interestingly, in the Murray River scenario - will it be the Activists or the Government that will instigate this change?
In a democratic society, a Conflict Model pushing for a better environment is triggered by a group of people with environmental insights and adequate analytical skills. These people initiate a series of campaigns which arouse the interest of the public and the attention of the Government. Facing critiques and ressures of the public, government has to address and provide solutions to the issue. At this time, a well-organized and efficient government in a Functional Model will help alleviate the situations.
In the water crisis issue in Australia, even the public may not be aware the urgency of the problem, the government is well-acquainted with the situation. The government knows very well that things have to be done to deal with it. Therefore, a series of measures is currently put on agendas. These measures include water allocations, water rights trading, etc. In South Australia, irrigators are facing the fate of orchard production cut as a result of 20% cutting of water allocation. Yet, many of the measures are still under debate. Unfortunately, all these measures are beyond the control of individuals or even environmentalists.
The issue is on the table now. It is the turn of the government to rectify the situation by speeding up the compensation schemes, better market mechanism of the water trading etc. The interesting point is; democracy in Australia may now become one of the impediments of the Murray River salvage campaign. It is because; any tiny manoeuvre of the government will induce debates and criticisms, thus hindering any possible solutions to the problem. Yet, the democratic atmosphere of this country enhances the public to monitor the government from committing similar mistakes as before, i.e. massive land clearing since European Settlement.
Unfortunately our government does get pulled this way and that a little through the different priorities of different communities. At least in this case it is the government who is pushing measures to correct the Murray River issues and have been actively doing so and are working on it as best they can. They are not the 'original' instigators but tend to believe more that they are actively acting on community pressures from locals etc. in the areas of concern where the problem has become heightened to such levels that is now involving such great areas as to attract commonwealth interest.
I am quite sceptical about the usefulness of green groups. Although they have some extremely valid arguments, I feel as though they “whinge” too much. Personally, if I see activists I think “Oh no, here they go again”, whereas if they were more rational and really considered all the issues, like social benefit, they would get a little further. Maybe if they tried to solve some of their issues and then go to government as say, “we think this is a problem, these are the impacts, this is a possible measure”, they would be taken a little more seriously. To me its just like a continuously whinging kid, you take notice of them the first time, but after you just block them out, until something really does go wrong.
In the end, the government is the ultimate environmental negotiator. They are the ones who must weigh up all aspects (environmental, social, economical etc) to try and do what is best for us all. However on many occasions decisions are made with stronger economical and personal agendas behind them. The greenies are the ones that keep them on track and bring issues to their attention. It really is a gamble for the greenies whether or not the government has the good sense to take their advice.
“I think the bottom line is something like: It will be the environmentalists/activists who push community and pressure governmental change, but then it will be the governmental 'green' legislation (once accepted) that will ensure compliance and force sustainable change.”
Real-life situations certainly have the capacity to draw attention to on-ground examples concerning the roles of environmental activism and government regulation in achieving environmental gains. The issue of tree clearing and vegetation management in Queensland is one such issue, which is both very current and very close to home.
Environmental activism has occurred on a mass scale in an attempt to pressure governments into introducing new legislation regulating the clearing of trees on freehold and leasehold land. As it stands, the issue of vegetation management in Queensland remains unresolved, floundering beneath a whirlpool of ethical, social, cultural, ecological and economic controversy, further inflamed by the widely divergent views of various stakeholder groups.
In light of this discussion topic, it is useful to consider whether government regulation, in the form of Acts, regulations and enforcement mechanisms, or environmental activism, via emotive campaigning and influencing public opinion, are likely to be more effective in halting unsustainable clearing practices.
According to Rick Berman, of the United States Centre for Consumer Freedom, activists, buoyed by money, energy and passion, can win. Activists have an ongoing agenda, and as a result, Berman claims, ‘they never lose because there’s no clock, because their objective is an endless pursuit. If it takes five, 10 or 20 years to get results, that’s okay with them’.
It may well take this long to reach a resolution on vegetation management in Queensland that green groups consider acceptable. However, driven by passion, emotion and a steadfast belief in the righteousness of their campaign, activists will continue to fight. While governments may tire of the issue as new, more politically volatile issues arise, activists will push on. This tenacity is where the great strength of activism lies, and why, when pitted against government regulation, it can be viewed as the more effective mechanism in achieving environmental gains.