Dieser Artikel ist auch in deutscher Sprache verfügbar: Zum deutschen Artikel.
The Peaceful Revolution of 1989 showed that, with courage, solidarity and peaceful protest, people can bring about change in a political system. Hundreds of thousands of citizens took to the streets with candles, chanting “We are the people”, and fought for freedom, democracy and the right to decide their own future. More than 35 years later, the question arises once again as to whether it is enough to celebrate the Peaceful Revolution every year and tick a box on the ballot paper every four years, or whether the electorate should have more opportunities to help shape important political decisions between elections as well.
Many people in Germany feel that their vote hardly counts at all once the election is over. Before the election, parties and politicians make promises. After the election, these are often altered or abandoned altogether. This leads to disappointment among many citizens and raises the question of whether democracy really has to work this way, or whether it can be further developed.
Germany is currently a representative democracy. This means that citizens elect their representatives, who then make decisions in parliament. This system has many advantages. Members of parliament can examine legislation in depth, consult experts and also respond to unexpected crises.
At the same time, however, there is a drawback: after the election, citizens hand over a large part of their decision-making power to their elected representatives. There are four years between two federal elections, during which the population has little direct influence on political decisions.
The people are the sovereign
This is where the distinction between representative democracy and democratic sovereignty lies. According to Article 20 of the Basic Law, all state authority derives from the people. The people are therefore the sovereign, that is, the actual holders of state authority. In today’s representative democracy, the people exercise this power primarily by electing representatives.
The actual political decisions are then taken by the members of parliament. Greater democratic sovereignty would mean that citizens not only vote every four years, but can also regularly decide for themselves on important political issues.
This would not replace Parliament, but rather complement it. Elected representatives would continue to govern the state, but would have to seek the people’s approval more frequently when making fundamental decisions. Many political scientists refer to this as a stronger link between representative and direct democracy.
A look at other democratic states shows that this is fundamentally possible. In Switzerland, citizens regularly decide on constitutional amendments and important political issues through referendums. Parliament remains in place, but must take the will of the people into account more frequently. This does not weaken democracy, but rather supplements it with a further right to have a say.
MPs’ salaries
The remuneration of members of the Bundestag is also a subject of recurring critical debate. At present, the Bundestag itself decides on the level of MPs’ allowances, even though this is done publicly and in accordance with fixed legal rules. Many citizens nevertheless find it problematic that politicians ultimately decide on their own income.
One possible democratic alternative would be to let the public vote on this directly. Each ballot paper could include the additional question: ‘Should MPs’ allowances be increased in the coming parliamentary term? – Yes or No.’ The result would be binding on all elected MPs. Anyone unwilling to stand for election under these conditions could voluntarily withdraw their candidacy.
The next candidate on the electoral list would then take their place. As a result, it would not be Parliament itself deciding on its own pay, but the true sovereign – the citizens.
In Germany, by contrast, there are almost no referendums at federal level. Whilst the Basic Law permits referendums in a few special cases – such as the reorganisation of the federal territory – there is no general right to nationwide referendums. At state level, there are citizens’ initiatives and referendums, but these are often subject to high thresholds.
The book *Weil Wegsehen keine Option ist* provides further information on this topic; for example, a large number of signatures often have to be collected within a short space of time. Furthermore, in many federal states, referendums are not permitted on important issues such as the state budget or civil servants’ salaries. This gives many people the impression that, whilst direct democracy is possible, it is rarely successful in practice.
What is democracy worth to us?
This raises a simple question: what is democracy actually worth to us? Every year, the state spends billions of euros on administration, elections and major infrastructure projects. If greater direct participation can strengthen citizens’ trust in democracy, it would make sense to provide sufficient long-term funding and organisational structures for referendums. Democracy costs money. However, a lack of trust in democracy could ultimately cost us democracy itself.
Another point of criticism concerns the handling of election promises. Many citizens vote for a party because it supports certain political goals. After the election, however, these promises are often altered or abandoned altogether during coalition negotiations. Legally, this is permissible because, under Article 38 of the Basic Law, Members of Parliament are bound only by their conscience and are not bound by instructions or election promises. This so-called ‘free mandate’ protects their independence.
At the same time, many citizens find this arrangement unsatisfactory because they feel that it diminishes the significance of their voting decision. However, this also means that the electorate may lose their loyalty to and respect for a government that does not reflect their actual voting decision.
One possible reform would therefore be to require that particularly far-reaching changes to key election pledges be subject to the approval of the population. If, after the election, a government wishes to pursue a political course that is completely different from that announced before the election, a nationwide referendum could be held on the matter. This would not strip Parliament of its powers. Rather, the sovereign – that is, the population – would retain the final say on fundamental policy decisions.
Who decides on the coalition agreement?
Another reform proposal concerns the formation of a federal government. Following a federal election, the parties often negotiate a coalition agreement. This agreement sets out the political objectives the future government will pursue and which election pledges will be implemented or amended. At present, the parties themselves decide whether to approve a coalition agreement.
From the perspective of strengthening democratic sovereignty, the public could instead have the final say. Once coalition negotiations have concluded, the negotiated agreement could be put to the public for a vote. The question would be deliberately kept simple: ‘Should the coalition agreement be approved? – Yes or No.’
If the majority rejects the coalition agreement, the parties would have to renegotiate and draw up an agreement that better reflects the views of the public. Such an arrangement would likely prolong the process of forming a government and make it more difficult. (Nobody said that governing was easy! And nobody was forced to want to govern!)
At the same time, however, this could lead to more people identifying with the new government. Citizens would have voted not only on the parties, but also on the government’s own political programme. This would not replace representative democracy, but rather supplement it by giving the sovereign an additional say. The government would derive its democratic legitimacy not only from the election of parliament, but also from the population’s direct endorsement of the joint government programme.
Critics of such a model point out that this could significantly prolong coalition negotiations, and that in times of crisis, the swift formation of a government is crucial. Supporters counter that a government which has its political basis directly endorsed by the people can rely on stronger democratic legitimacy. In their view, the longer time taken to form a government would be partly offset by greater public confidence in the government’s subsequent decisions.
The question of the common good
Another way of further developing democracy is democratic socialism. This is not a new form of democracy, but rather a political orientation within a democratic system. Free elections, freedom of expression, the separation of powers and independent courts are fully preserved. At the same time, democratic socialism aims to reduce economic inequalities and align the state more closely with the common good.
Supporters see this as particularly beneficial for people on low and middle incomes. Greater investment in education, healthcare, public transport and affordable housing could improve living conditions for many families. Stronger workers’ rights, fairer wages and higher taxation of very high incomes and wealth are also frequently cited as measures to narrow the social divide. The aim is not to give everyone the same income, but to enable everyone to have the chance of a good and secure life.
Critics, on the other hand, fear that greater state intervention could lead to higher tax burdens, less investment and reduced economic competitiveness. The actual impact would depend on the specific design of the policy measures and is assessed differently by academics.
Democracy does not mean that it must remain unchanged. It thrives on citizens reflecting on improvements and discussing new ideas. Greater direct participation, more binding involvement of the electorate in fundamental political decisions, or a stronger social orientation of the state would not amount to the abolition of democracy.
Rather, they would represent different ways of further developing democracy. This is precisely where its strength lies: a vibrant democracy can change without abandoning its fundamental values – freedom, the rule of law, the separation of powers and the sovereignty of the people. A democracy that entrusts its citizens with more responsibility and a greater say can strengthen trust in politics whilst at the same time preventing disappointment with politics from turning into a desire for authoritarian solutions.
The question of trust
Democracy thrives on the trust of its citizens. This trust arises above all through transparency, participation and the certainty that the state acts in the interests of the sovereign.
Against this backdrop, the current discussions about a possible restriction of the Freedom of Information Act
are viewed critically by many, as they fear that this will make government action less transparent. At the same time, cases of alleged police violence against demonstrators that have repeatedly come to public attention are causing unease. Even if such incidents do not reflect the conduct of the police as a whole, they can reinforce a sense of powerlessness, vulnerability and helplessness among many people.
In other democratic states, too, there have been developments which critics have interpreted as undermining the sovereignty of the people. In Hungary, according to numerous international organisations, press freedom has been increasingly restricted, making it more difficult for the public to hold the government to account. In Poland, the independence of the judiciary has been criticised for years on the grounds that political interference could jeopardise the separation of powers. Such examples show that democratic structures cannot be taken for granted, but must be constantly protected and further developed.
This gives the impression that political decisions can widen the gap between those in power and the governed when transparency and public participation are curtailed. Whether this actually leads to a lasting loss of power for the sovereign remains a matter of political judgement.
One thing is certain, however: a vibrant democracy depends on citizens being informed, being able to express their opinions freely, and being allowed to exercise effective scrutiny over government action. The crucial question therefore remains whether it will be possible to restore trust in democratic institutions through greater openness, transparency and a closer connection to the public.
Empfohlen auf LZ
So können Sie die Berichterstattung der Leipziger Zeitung unterstützen:
There is one comment