Strengthening democracy means restoring people’s trust: An editorial

Dieser Artikel ist auch in deutscher Sprache verfügbar: Zum deutschen Artikel.

Democracy in Germany is facing one of its greatest challenges since reunification. More and more people are doubting that the democratic system can still solve their problems. In my view, this dwindling trust is the real danger – not democracy itself. That is why the issue today is not about abandoning our democracy, but about developing it further.

I am not alone in this assessment. The former President of the Federal Constitutional Court, Hans-Jürgen Papier, also sees significant shortcomings. He criticises the fact that many citizens no longer feel represented by the established parties. Their concerns, interests and expectations are often not adequately addressed. As a result, representative democracy is losing credibility and fringe political groups are gaining support. I wholeheartedly agree with this analysis.

In my two guest articles – ‘Renewing democracy rather than abandoning it’ and ‘Every year it’s the same: “Demonstrations, candles and grand speeches”: Voting once every four years alone is not enough!’ – I have attempted to highlight the causes of this development and possible solutions. In eastern Germany in particular, many people experience democracy differently from those in western Germany.

The experiences of the GDR, the hopes associated with reunification and certain economic and social disparities that persist to this day shape people’s trust in the state. Anyone who, over the years, sees little improvement in their living conditions or feels that political decisions ignore their own concerns will eventually lose that trust. It is precisely at this moment that the breeding ground for populism and authoritarian promises emerges.

Yet I am convinced that the answer to this must not be an authoritarian system. The answer must be a better democracy – one that is more socially just, closer to the people and offers more opportunities for participation. Democracy thrives not only on free elections, but also on people feeling that their voices are heard. It thrives on compassion, social cohesion and a willingness to take responsibility.

It is about genuine participation

On this point, my conclusions differ in part from those of Hans-Jürgen Papier. Whilst he primarily calls for the existing parties to listen more closely to the population again and fulfil their representative role more effectively, I believe that structural reforms are also necessary. The trust of many people cannot be regained through better communication alone. Citizens must also be given more opportunities to participate in political decision-making themselves.

That is why I have proposed supplementing representative democracy with selected elements of direct democracy. Nationwide referendums on fundamental issues for the future, greater say in far-reaching decisions on political direction, or democratic ratification of coalition agreements could help to strengthen the link between the public and politics once again.

This would not replace Parliament, but rather complement it. Representative democracy would remain the foundation of our political system, but would be more closely linked to the true sovereign – the citizens.

The problem of growing inequality

I also see the debate on democratic socialism in this context. This is not about abolishing freedom, the rule of law or the separation of powers. On the contrary: these fundamental values remain indispensable. Rather, it is about placing greater emphasis on economic and social justice. A democracy that allows ever-greater social inequalities to persist will, in the long term, lose public support. Freedom and social security must therefore not be seen as opposites, but must complement one another.

At the same time, I share Hans-Jürgen Papier’s warning against negative populism. Anyone who persuades people that complex problems can be solved with simple slogans will ultimately only create further disappointment. Democracy demands honesty. It requires us to address problems openly, to weigh up differing interests and to develop viable solutions. This is often arduous, but that is precisely where its strength lies.

I am therefore convinced that our positions do not contradict one another, but rather complement each other. Hans-Jürgen Papier convincingly describes the causes of the crisis of trust within our democratic system. I am trying to draw conclusions from this and develop proposals on how this trust can be restored. Both perspectives lead to the same realisation: democracy must not stand still. It must continue to evolve if it is to retain the trust of the people. Because looking the other way is not an option; rather, it is a call to get involved.

A living process

Democracy is not a finished structure. It is a living process that must be continually reviewed, improved and adapted to changes in society. The Peaceful Revolution of 1989 showed that citizens can take responsibility and that change is possible. We should not only celebrate this spirit on days of remembrance, but carry it over into everyday political life.

If people once again feel that their voice counts not only on election day, but also carries weight between elections, lost trust can be restored. This is precisely where I see the most important task of our time: not to replace democracy, but to courageously develop it further – making it freer, fairer and closer to the people. For only a democracy that is capable of renewing itself will remain the democracy of its citizens in the future.

This is my entirely personal opinion!

When offering criticism, please also bear in mind: ‘Strong opinions devoid of argument are the best breeding ground for a new dictatorship – one of inflated ignorance.’

***
Richard Gauch is a recipient of the ‘Couragiert in Leipzig’ award – 2013 and, as project leader of the initiative group ‘Mahnwache und Stolpersteine putzen’, ‘Active for Democracy and Tolerance – 2012’, and a prize-winner of the Alliance for Democracy and Tolerance – Against Extremism and Violence at the Federal Agency for Civic Education.