by Sarah Ampolsk
In observing the elections that have taken place on the European continent thus far in 2019, two countries stand out. The first is Slovakia, one of the four central European “Visegrad” countries, which – along with neighboring Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary (together comprising the V4) – had most often appeared in the news in recent years for issues relating to corruption and democratic backsliding. In its March presidential election, Slovakia bucked the recent V4 trend of anti-establishment, nationalistic leadership by electing a left-wing activist (and the country’s first female president), Zuzana Caputova.
Caputova, a political novice, catapulted to the nation’s highest office on a promise to root out corruption and “stand up to evil,” which resonated with Slovakians still reeling from the 2018 murder of investigative journalist Jan Kuciak and his fiancee, Martina Kusnirova, who had been preparing a story on the then-government’s alleged ties to the Italian mafia at the time of his death. But although this was the catalyst for Caputova’s foray into national politics, she had been an activist long before. An environmental lawyer by trade, Caputova has been likened to US activist Erin Brockovich. In her pre-political life, she was the vanguard of a movement to halt a dumping site in her native Pezinok that would have had adverse effects on the local environment; she not only won the case, leading what was at that time referred to as the largest mobilization of citizens since the Velvet Revolution which toppled communism in 1989, but the European Union Court of Justice took interest in the issue as well, spurring the body to create rules mandating public involvement in decisions regarding projects that could potentially affect the environment. For her successful efforts, Caputova was awarded the Goldman Environmental Prize for Europe in 2016.
Although Caputova’s historic election was not entirely centered around the environment, her prior activism played a not insignificant role in her campaign. In our rapidly warming world, where recent studies have climate change growing more catastrophic by the day, environmental issues have mobilized citizens across Europe. In Caputova’s case, her history of environmental activism, combined with her pledge to form a more just government, clearly resonated with the corruption-weary Slovakian public. We are currently in an era of rapid democratic backsliding in Europe and across the globe, and this trend doesn’t seem to be slowing down. However, the election of a liberal environmental lawyer to a position previously held by a nationalist – with the caveat that there were, of course, many more issues at play – is worth noting: perhaps climate change is an issue so pressing that it could be the thing that bucks the trend.
Or so I’d hope. However, another recent European election that also focused heavily on environmental issues deserves attention, and for complete opposite reasons than the Slovak example. Finland, long considered to be one of Europe’s liberal bastions, posted a surprising result in its recent parliamentary elections earlier in April: a nationalist populist party, the Finns Party, came second to the center-left Social Democrats, winning 39 seats in the 200-seat legislature to the Social Democrats’ 40. Jussi Halla-aho, the leader of the Finns Party, campaigned not just on immigration – the bread and butter issue of nationalists worldwide – but on climate change. Specifically – and considering that Finland stands to be heavily impacted by the rise in global temperatures, shockingly – Halla-aho’s Finns Party framed climate issues as urban and elitist, imposed by a out-of-touch political majority whose policies would end up being detrimental to the average Finn. The rhetoric resonated with what is, judging by the outcome – 2nd place in an election with a 72% turnout – a large portion of Finnish citizens who believe that their country has already shouldered too much of the burden in global efforts to combat the changing climate.
I believe what it boils down to is this: attention to climate change is growing, and with it, activism; and, with that, counter-activism. From the above two elections, we can see that this is an issue that is very salient to the left, but which also is easily integrated into far-right, nationalist talking points. It is too early to make a grand projection on what role climate issues will play in Europe in the coming years based solely on these two elections, but it bears watching: will the fight for environmental justice be the straw that breaks the nationalist camel’s back, or will it add fuel to the already raging fire?
(Picture c/o Wikimedia Commons)
I find this comparison between two political implementations of climate change very interesting. I agree that it is important to consider how climate change is incorporated into politics around the world as climate change issues become more salient in response to more visible effects. Acknowledging that climate issues can fuel policies that work to combat climate change or policies that disregard climate change as unimportant allows us as onlookers and analysts to be prepared for all responses along that continuum. Exploring the issue further, I wonder whether the difference in existing policies and responses to climate change in the case studies you analyzed. Does Slovakia have any existing policies in place to combat climate change, or was Caputova’s election the first major step in that direction? This might affect how engaged the voting population was with climate issues. Finland, on the other hand, has implemented policies to counteract the climate effects they are already experiencing, but the recent election demonstrates that a move toward solid environmental policies is not permanent and can be undone through appealing political campaigns. Climate change clearly suffers from a several cooperation issues, including a free-rider problem, which the Finnish political scene is reacting to, as the rest of the world seems not to be contributing as much to the cause. Climate policy can therefore be co-opted as both conservative and liberal, serving to support stronger climate policies or to undermine existing ones.
I think you bring up a very good question in this blog post, which is quite good by the way. Your discussion of what has been recently seen in Slovakia and Finland does make me wonder how the ever growing discussion around climate change is going to play in the near future. To see how the topic of climate change was used to mobilize and bring a group of people together to help improve their society in Slovakia does give me hope that there is a future for climate change activism. But, to see how a right-wing, nationalist party in Finland also used climate change to further their agenda and power does point to how divisive this issue can be in politics. I would think that in order to prevent right-wing, nationalist parties from being able to use climate change denial as a way to garner votes, we must work harder to combat the skepticism which comes with discussions of climate change. Specifically in the US where this is definitely an issue that is divisive and has been used by both parties to advance their agendas. It looked like real action towards climate change was a very real possibility when countries all around the world gathered to support and sign the Paris Agreement which would start the process of working to slow climate change and become more active in preventing climate change. But, Donald Trump, and his known stance as a climate change skeptic, withdrew the US from these agreements which has brought with it a revitalization of the “invalidity” of climate change in the US. I do think that environmental justice will prevail and break the nationalists back, but it is going to take a lot more fighting to combat climate change skepticism and educating more people on the future effects climate change will have on our planet.