Unpacking the Political Dynamics of Climate Governance in an Era of Democratic Backsliding: The “Green Autocracy Vs. Brown Democracy” Paradox

The global climate catastrophe necessitates good governance, but recent evidence suggests a strange departure from theoretical assumptions. While liberal environmentalists argue that democracies are ideal stewards because of their transparency and accountability, and authoritarian governments are ecologically shortsighted, 21st-century patterns throw this dichotomy into question. This research investigates the empirical puzzle of "green autocracy" versus "brown democracy"—where some authoritarian regimes implement aggressive climate policies while certain democracies systematically obstruct environmental protection. The central research question examines how climate policy becomes instrumentalized for performance-based legitimation in non-democratic systems while being weaponized for political mobilization in democratic contexts. This study moves beyond regime-type determinism to analyze the internal political dynamics mediating climate governance outcomes. Through structured comparative case studies of China and Hungary ("green" autocracy/backsliding) and the United States and Brazil ("brown" democracy), this research employs qualitative content analysis, critical discourse analysis, and process-tracing of primary documents and political rhetoric. The theoretical framework synthesizes three bodies of literature: democratic backsliding's erosion of environmental accountability mechanisms; authoritarian performance legitimation through environmental governance; and populism's ideological flexibility in framing climate politics. Findings reveal that centralized, non-deliberative systems can rapidly deploy climate policy as a tool of domestic and international legitimation, while populist actors in democracies strategically frame environmental protection as elitist projects threatening national sovereignty and economic interests. This research contributes to reframing climate governance debates by demonstrating how contemporary political trends—specifically populism and democratic backsliding—reshape global climate responses. It offers a nuanced understanding of how democratic vulnerabilities enable climate obstruction while authoritarian regimes leverage environmental performance for legitimacy. The analysis provides critical insights for policymakers seeking to bolster effective, legitimate climate action amid democratic recession and authoritarian resilience, highlighting the urgent need to reconcile democratic values with ecological imperatives in an increasingly turbulent global order.