What democracy owes the future

Abstract Democracy is, by definition, committed to the present and, thus, seems incompatible with planning for the future. This is precisely why scholars turn to external normative registers such as human rights or intergenerational equity to justify future-regarding obligations. This article argues, however, that the challenge of democratic short-termism can be resolved from within democratic theory itself. Protecting the future is not an external imposition but, rather, a reaffirmation of democracy’s foundational commitment to safeguarding self-governance. I argue that democracy’s pro tempore character requires that the present always retain the capacity to govern itself over time. Democracy is degraded whenever citizens are rendered subjects of decisions they cannot meaningfully contest or revise. Of course, democratic governments frequently make “sticky” decisions—namely, decisions that are costly to reverse. When should “sticky” decisions be regarded as democratically suspect? This article develops the concept of “democratic foreclosure” to discern such circumstances, using the example of climate change. Democratic foreclosure arises when durable commitments deprive publics of a realistic capacity to “decide again.” The wrong of foreclosure lies in the erosion of the conditions under which both contemporaries and future constituencies can exercise meaningful self government. In light of these concerns, the article considers whether and how constitutional and other guardrails could constrain democratic foreclosure and concludes with the modest claim that no generation can fully secure the future but that every democratic generation bears the responsibility to keep it open.