The Effect of Democracy versus Autocracy in Environmental Policy-making using Six African Cases

Abstract: As climate change continues to permeate the current political discourse and its effects becomes increasingly visible, the way countries respond to the situation is crucial for determining the extent of future environmental degradation. The Paris Agreement is an attempt to mitigate and adapt to the situation, however the western values tied to it have been criticised. The effectiveness of democracy in environmental protection has been questioned, especially its ties to capitalism and individualism. This thesis uses the theory of authoritarian environmentalism to investigate this debate and see whether the claims have any legitimacy in the context of the Paris Agreement and the promises made in relation to it.     This thesis is a structured focused comparison which compares the policies and projects in three democratic and three autocratic African countries in close geographical proximity and similar environmental situations, to investigate if and in what way the type of government affects the promises made, and whether they are kept, to the Paris Agreement and its signatories. The indicators used for the thesis include policies and internationally funded projects, due to their accessibility, however it is worth noting that they only give a crude approximation of the activities and ambition in the countries, with several others having important roles.    The quality of the six countries’ Intended Nationally Determined Contributions is investigated and followed up with an evaluation of some of the projects active to examine if the countries are implementing their promised efforts, already in these early, yet important, stages of the Agreement. In addition, the theory is applied to the countries’ efforts and some conclusions are reached, including the overall good quality of the countries’ environmental work and confirming that authoritarian countries can produce quality policies, while still having lacking areas, similar to their democratic counterparts, pointing to the complexity of the topic.