Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: How do power and violence manifest in political contexts? That’s the question we explore in Room #935 of the Deep Talk Club, under our overarching theme of “Power & Violence.” Listen in on the examples that came up and the perspectives that emerged in dialogue…
Note: This session was recorded live in German as part of the Deep Talk Club, so the video above is German-language audio only. What follows is an English translation of the conversation, lightly edited for readability — the back-and-forth between the moderator and participants is preserved, but the original timestamps and speaker names have been left out.
A very warm good morning. Today we continue with power and violence in politics, and we want to engage with the question of how power and violence manifest in political contexts. And very much in the spirit of a reflection room, you’re all very warmly invited to join us again this morning, to step into the exchange, so that through the first impulses, the first thoughts you have on the topic, we can start the reflection room, open up different perspectives, maybe pick up examples too, and work our way along accordingly, to see what insights we can generate together from this room today. As every morning, we have a recording, so anyone who joins automatically agrees that the whole thing will also be published afterward, just as a reminder. Then we have three small room rules: a profile photo where you’re recognizable, first and last name, and at least one sentence in your bio. And anyone who doesn’t want that for whatever reason, or can’t speak right now but is listening and maybe has the option to write, is warmly invited to join in via the chat too. With that, the round is open for this morning, and I’m curious who would like to join.
A very warm good morning, dear Vera.
Good morning, Yasemin. Good morning everyone. Yasemin, I have a problem with the title. “Power in Politics,” I can understand that. But what do you mean by “violence in politics”? Violence between politicians, between political currents, violence depending on the form of government? What do you mean by that? I’m having trouble grasping it.
Thank you so much for the question. It’s really not as fixed as all that. Let’s just gather thoughts together and see what it could all be. So, if you say you can imagine something with power in politics, we can already pick up on the first impulses there. And with violence in politics, exactly the questions you’ve asked, we can put those to the room too, and then see what comes to mind, what could violence in politics look like, and how does it ultimately express itself. And maybe we’ll come to the conclusion, no, it doesn’t quite fit somehow. So it’s held fairly openly at this point. I can repeat the question again, since that just came up in the chat, that we might need a question. The question we want to engage with today is, how do power and violence manifest in political contexts. So basically it’s about starting directly with the first impulses. That was already the first impulse Vera had, saying, I can do something with power, but with violence I don’t know exactly what you mean. And then to say, okay, we can pick up various aspects here and see what violence in politics could be. And just like in other rooms, we can open up different levels here too. So it could also be violence between politicians, for example. And then we can see that through the first impulses, the first thoughts we have, we step into the exchange here too. And several facets and examples arise from that, which we can pick up. So I’m really curious, Vera, since you said you can more easily imagine something with power, but you’re still struggling a bit with violence, do you already have some starting points where we could begin?
Yes, and that’s a point for me too, if, for example — I’ll stick with a completely normal democratic country — if politicians or political institutions, going down to lower offices or levels, say from the state level down to the municipal level, if power is exercised there in the form of pressure. So that something is expected, gets done, without maybe even directly demanding it, but that an office then decides, so to speak, along political lines rather than necessarily along objective ones. I could very well imagine that, for example.
Yes, wonderful, thank you so much. The question that arises, of course, is do we perhaps have examples of that, where we know this from somewhere? That doesn’t necessarily have to be the German-speaking world either, we can also look beyond national borders. It often helps to bring in different aspects and look at them from one angle or another. Maybe something comes to mind for you there too. And in parallel, I’d like to invite the others to join in too, and see what first thoughts and impulses we have on the topic of power and violence in politics. How do power and violence manifest in political contexts? And to pick up various aspects here again. What are the first impulses you have on the topic, maybe also the questions that arise from this, like Vera just brought into the exchange, and then work our way along and see together. The more people join in with comments and bring in different aspects as impulses, the more connecting points we’ll have in the reflection, in the exchange with each other, that open up as a result. So really, a very warm invitation to join in and bring in your first thoughts on the topic too.
Vera, would you like to add something here? Do you have examples, or further thoughts on the topic?
Yes, I can also exercise power not only from top to bottom, but also from bottom to top, so to speak. For example, in the form of a citizens’ petition, a referendum, or simply at the ballot box, the moment I vote, I have, even if modest, a certain power there too, where I express that. And since there are very, very many of us, that’s already a weight too.
Yes, absolutely. And especially when we look at different aspects in this development, on one hand it’s that, for example, elections happen and thereby, in a legitimized way, so to speak, part of it gets handed over, part of it, that the country you live in, for example — because you just said we can stick with democracy — in a certain way, depending on which country it is and how the divisions, for example the separation of powers and so on, function in the background, that different interests of the people are each implemented, against the background of certain, I’ll call them rules, being upheld. And on the other hand, that means power is handed over to some extent, in quotation marks, in the sense of a society, to look after and manage the whole country accordingly, to organize it, maybe to create structures, many aspects fall under that. And on the other hand you said, isn’t it then not just top-down — especially what’s happening currently in Germany, for example, or what we observe, this thing where once elected, parties suddenly and obviously make something different out of it than what was perhaps promised. That’s one aspect we could talk about. Or conversely, if we look at what actually happens in various elections, what developments take place, and then such results come out, like a certain party increasingly gaining strength, which is pleasing for some on one hand, but also worrying for others on the other hand. And this also shows that pressure can be exerted in such a way too. And then you could look at what exactly that is. Are we talking about power now, are we talking about violence? How does that express itself in these political contexts? We could look at that more closely and maybe play a bit with the terminology too. But exactly that’s the approach, from my point of view, how we can work our way along and look at this.
Would you like to add something here again, Vera, or bring in further examples?
I found the aspects you just brought in wonderful. I’ve just lost my train of thought because I was listening so intently. I need to think for a moment.
Yes, it’ll surely come back to you in a moment. How about the rest of you, dear ones? Would you like to add to these aspects too? So we now have the room title, “Power and Violence in Politics.” How do power and violence manifest in political contexts? That was the question, and we’ve now already picked up this aspect of exerting pressure on various offices from above or below, but also, for example, through elections as examples. We now have several possibilities. We have the possibility to continue gathering on the meta-level and look at it, sort it, or we have the possibility to go deeper into the very concrete examples that have been brought up, and look at them more closely, maybe even alongside current events, against this background, to look at one thing or another in more depth.
Vera, has your thought come back in the meantime, or would you like to add something else?
The thought I had before and had formulated in my mind hasn’t come back. But what just occurred to me is that there’s this aspect that you have to, or should have, the right party membership, because one of the parties, let’s say, especially in rural areas or at the municipal-city level, has the biggest say and not, say, Bavaria for example. If I have the wrong party membership there, I have fewer chances of achieving something. Not necessarily within, as a politician or municipal council member or something, but maybe as a tradesperson with contracts, or just in getting ahead in certain offices and administrations. I find that also has something to do with power.
I’d love to take a closer look at what exactly you mean by that, what that has to do with power. With party platforms, the question that comes to my mind first, independent of power and violence at this point, is the first impulse that came up for me: who actually reads that, does anyone even read it at all? Isn’t it often the case that you use some kind of election matching tool to see what would fit best, or there are always election posters at certain election times, depending on what kind of election it is, how big it is, maybe even down to broadcasts about it, whether radio or TV. So that was one of the first things that popped into my mind, how many people actually use reading a party platform, or isn’t it in the end simply what you read or watch in the media or similar, what you pick up on what the party allegedly stands for, and usually it’s certain campaign promises that matter, and based on that maybe you go and vote.
That was an impulse for me. Vera.
Well, I’ve actually done that, had party platforms sent to me and read them more or less completely, which of course is very tedious, because there are many, many pages. But I think that’s what we have journalists and reporters and media for, to break the whole thing down and pass it on. And what you can actually concretely read out of a party platform is really just the important, concrete points and which direction the party wants to go. If I take individual points, I always have to assume that in our country, for example, no party can govern alone anymore, or very rarely, but always has to form a coalition and thus also has to make compromises. So no party can implement what’s in its platform, what it promises, 100 percent.
Yes, I find that really, really fascinating, especially with this aspect of coalitions, and that it’s usually the case that there are mostly coalitions, and against this background that would mean, for example, that the voter basically doesn’t just look at a platform, a party platform, and decide to cast their vote for one party, but actually you’d have to, and maybe some do this too, and I’m sure some do, think about what position does this party represent, I’m giving this party a vote. And as a consequence, if this party actually gets a decent number of votes and would form a coalition, with whom is there also a likelihood that a coalition will be formed? Because there are certainly tendencies here too that are conceivable or rather not conceivable. And so, yes, that would be a nice, interesting point here. Thank you.
And I’d like to take the opportunity again to invite the others too. You’ll notice we’re just picking up various thoughts to work our way along. So feel free to join in, under this room topic of power and violence in politics, how power and violence manifest in political contexts, just to pick up various impulses, thoughts, and see what doors open up through the exchange and in which direction the room shapes itself today accordingly.
Vera, would you like to pick up on the previous point again?
Yes, gladly. And it’s like this, we now have, for example, basically six parties here in Germany. And the more parties there are, of course the 100 percent gets distributed among more parties. And there will increasingly be three-way coalitions. And so governing actually becomes, unfortunately, increasingly difficult, because three parties have to make more compromises than just two parties. You can see it currently, and I find it quite sensational that our three-way coalition has made it this far, because it certainly wasn’t a marriage made in heaven, and from that perspective it will also become increasingly difficult to maneuver through our country in the future, at least sticking with us.
If we maybe pick up further aspects, I’ve noted some keywords based on a message in the chat — one is the separation of powers, which we could bring in here, the distribution or division of power. We have executive, legislative, and judicial, which also came up in the chat. Then we could bring in keywords like war too. We could look at terms like foreign policy in this context too. Because politics isn’t only conducted in one state or one city, in one state, or we have different levels there too, or in one country, but also means an exchange and a certain cooperation, for example across countries. We have the EU, which plays a role here. We maybe also have EU directives, which then get transposed into laws, where our politicians play a role again, and so on. So I think we have a lot of connecting points here that we could maybe look at more closely. So these terms maybe as possibilities for further impulses, to open up further aspects, examples, etc. at various points too.
Vera, can you connect to any of this for yourself here too?
Gladly, first with the EU. The moment we all, or all countries, have handed over power to the EU, because ultimately EU directives, EU laws always stand above national laws. You can see it in the protests, like in Hungary, Poland, and so on. But that’s an agreement, so to speak, that we as states subordinate ourselves to that and give up power, and so the EU also keeps gaining more and more power, which of course is also a certain steering within the EU. Looking at it from a foreign policy perspective, it’s always the question of whether one country exerts pressure and thus power over other countries to enforce its own interests. I see China at the very front there, for example, who do this excellently, if you look at it from a Chinese perspective, especially with Africa or other countries, of course their neighbors first and foremost. Or also, if you look at the executive, it would basically be an exercise of power, for example here in Germany, if politics were to exercise power over our federal judges. They have to be 150 percent free in their decisions, and if political power were exercised there, I would see that as very, very critical, for example. Or even already in the selection of judges.
Yes, wonderful, thank you so much, and I think that’s a really interesting point, especially the last aspect you brought up, because it raised the question for me, well, we always have possibilities as to how things proceed, so to speak. At the top level it seems relatively plausible and relatively clear and simply regulated. So basically there’s a certain power, there’s a transfer of power, so to speak, that’s legitimized. And there’s, especially since you brought it up with judges etc., the thought occurred to me, theoretically yes, and how does it look in practice? So are there maybe also direct and indirect paths that happen here? Because one thing is something like the selection of a judge, a federal judge or similar, and the other is that we, or the judges, always move within the set framework, so to speak, and those are the laws that are defined beforehand, and jurisprudence also runs within these guardrails, which is per se quite fine at first. If we pick up the past three years now, during the pandemic period, it was very clearly noticeable how quickly, under certain framework conditions or similar, things get looked at. How quickly can legal frameworks or guidelines or similar be adapted? And as soon as the framework gets adapted, new guardrails are set again, within which the whole thing takes place again in a legitimized way. But especially in this area, I find there are very, very many gray zones, where you’d basically have to look more closely, because we just experienced this with the heat pumps, that the whole thing was first, in quotation marks, temporarily stopped, because the times, for example, in which a parliament and so on can internally coordinate and so on, that these times are getting shorter and shorter, to work into the topics, that you’re not deep enough into it, can’t prepare accordingly, and then votes are already running on whether you’re for or against certain things being implemented. All of these are topics that are currently on the agenda in our everyday life, so to speak, being discussed, which ultimately also has to do with power and violence in this context, in politics, in political contexts.
Vera, would you like to add to this?
Yes, I’d say that’s democracy. And I find it wonderful that a court can really say, stop, let’s take more time, three months doesn’t matter, so everyone has the chance to read through everything more carefully. And I mean, the whole heating law is of course problematic in that all the concepts, drafts and so on go through the press and get discussed, and logically there are always more changes and another change, until the final version is set. It’s simply a process, and that’s really the separation of powers. Lived separation of powers, I find that wonderful.
Thank you so much. What do the others say to that? Would anyone else like to join us? It’s relatively quiet in the audience today, I find. Maybe there’s one thought or another, whether on the aspects already mentioned or further examples you’d like to bring in on the topic. You’re all very warmly invited to join in and come into exchange with us on the topic of power and violence in politics, to see how that actually manifests in political contexts, power and violence. And yes, just a quick reminder again, we’re recording the room, which means anyone who joins automatically agrees that the whole thing will be recorded and then published. And we have three small room rules, a profile photo where you’re clearly recognizable, first and last name, and at least one sentence in your bio. And anyone who doesn’t want that for whatever reason can of course also use the chat to join in, maybe formulate questions or bring in thoughts as impulses, so we can pick those up accordingly, provided it fits in well.
And in parallel I see we now have another message in the chat. The term power can mean positive or negative, positive meaning taking on responsibility. Exactly, so yes, absolutely. In the past days we’ve also repeatedly opened up this aspect with the term power, as well as with violence, both, that the term power can be thought of as positive, as well as exercised negatively, used negatively. With both, also with violence, that there can be a positive violence or also a negative violence. So it’s not per se one direction or the other. I find that important to bring up again here too.
Wonderful. Vera, further points, further thoughts?
Yes, and namely power also, for example, if I think of journalists and media here, they also have a certain power, for example the research consortium with Süddeutsche Zeitung, Norddeutscher Rundfunk and Spiegel and whoever else is involved, who do a lot of research, background work, and thus can often uncover things that otherwise wouldn’t have been possible. And I think that also actually represents an additional power in the state.
Yes, thank you so much. Not for nothing do we speak of a fourth estate here too, so to speak. And that certainly also has influence on political contexts. The question is, to what extent, on the topic of power and violence in politics, that would almost be its own room probably, to look at how this fourth estate, these media, for example, also affect politics, or how the interplay between political aspects, politics and the media as the fourth estate takes place, surely also a really, really exciting topic to look at more closely here too.
Yes, absolutely. And that plays a role here too. And the question is just whether we want to really go deeper into that now, or whether it wouldn’t actually make sense to continue that in a separate room, so as not to get too deep into this media world here too. What are your thoughts?
It really only has indirectly something to do with politics, the question you just raised, to what extent that influences politicians to say or do something. But that doesn’t directly have to do with the exercise of power in politics.
Yes, wonderful, thank you so much. Sabine has joined, so let’s bring Sabine in directly and see if she connects to one of the points or brings in further examples or thoughts.
Sabine.
Sorry, I’ve been listening the whole time. I unfortunately couldn’t speak yet. Yes, on this topic, well, I agree with Vera, I find this very, very difficult. What occurred to me a bit, maybe with power and violence toward politics, is that I’ve noticed very often lately that the tones from all sides are getting rougher. Maybe you’ve more or less — I only caught it rudimentarily, what’s it called, the summer interview, Merz was interviewed once and yesterday Söder was interviewed I believe, they’re actually both in the same party, and they very vehemently contradicted each other on the question of cooperation with the AfD. And what’s also increasingly visible in other EU countries at the moment, we’re all, or all the states, tend increasingly a bit toward right-wing populism. And up until now this has all been, I think none, or I’d say many of those present will probably say, that’s not my direction. Nevertheless, from the other side there’s always been a kind of cuddle-course, so to speak, attempted, trying to distance themselves. Still, it’s talked about constantly. And now I at least notice that it’s being talked about much more harshly, because people simply say, maybe the cuddle-course isn’t getting us anywhere. That’s of course not violence in that sense, but maybe a form of violent expression.
Yes, thank you so much. Let me ask again regarding the heading you’ve chosen, so to speak, toward “power and violence toward politics.” Maybe you’d like to say again what the difference is for you between this little word “toward” instead of “in politics.” So the examples you brought up are understandable. But what do you mean by “toward politics,” when you say “power and violence toward politics”?
Basically, that you start with demonstrations, with violent demonstrations, instrumentalizing people, and thereby get into politics. That was my thought behind it. Because you simply create majorities. At the beginning people kind of smiled about it and said, well, those small percentages don’t bother us. Now the percentages are already at 20 percent. And now they do bother us. And now people start disciplining, what can we do? Maybe one should have thought at the beginning, hello, we need to bring more people along here. And the others took them along. Even though I think many of them don’t necessarily stand behind the party. That’s my assumption, I can’t prove it of course.
Yes, thank you so much. Vera, what do you say to that?
Well, I mean, we’re talking about the AfD now. I’m convinced, I have to say honestly, as much as it pains me, that a great many people here in Germany who vote for the AfD and stand behind it, really stand behind it, and it’s their way of thinking. I really fear that we in Germany, I don’t know if this belongs here, have quite a large percentage, somewhere between 10 and 20 percent in my opinion, who really think that way and believe that too. And yes, unfortunately that’s how it is.
Yes, thank you so much. So basically two completely different views here at this point. That means, on one hand there would be the approach Sabine just brought in, with this instrumentalizing to get into or reach politics. The other perspective now is, if people actually have such a mindset, regardless of which party it is, then it wouldn’t be instrumentalizing at all, but then it would actually be, in this context, what people think and what they cast their vote for accordingly. We probably won’t be able to resolve that here. So we can speculate about whether that’s the case or not, and maybe bring in our own experiences here too. Interestingly, in recent years, especially regarding the AfD, I’ve often noticed tendencies or ways of phrasing questions, even in my own circle of acquaintances, along the lines of, well not that I’d vote for them now, but well, it’s no wonder, maybe you should think about whether not voting for them might also initiate change. So also something like, it’s not about the AfD as such for me, but that you might vote for a party to get movement back into politics, because apparently there’s not enough movement anymore or something, and you’re simply not in agreement with what’s currently happening.
Sabine, I’d like to give you the chance again briefly, and then bring in Jürgen.
Yes, I completely agree with your opinion, Yasemin. A few years ago people always used to say, they’re all protest voters. And now, and I believe many protests also come from the protest side, your opinion makes me a little suspicious, because if we have 20 percent from the other side, then what’s currently being reflected would actually be reality. What scares me even more, though I don’t want to deny that you might be right, is that then politically you probably have to counter it a bit differently. What actually bothers me is that lately we’ve kept going for a cuddle-course everywhere, we don’t tackle things. I heard something yesterday about digitalization, I think 300 million was planned in the last budget, this year it’s supposed to be only four million, because apparently there’s still so much left over from the old assets that you can draw from there — I really have to hold my head over that, it was also about digitalization in administration, that nothing is progressing there, which someone even confirmed, that nothing is progressing there. So yes, I was a bit speechless when I heard that we’re not making progress precisely in the area of digitalization, which is on everyone’s lips. Yes, it all scares me a bit. But Jürgen will surely bring clarity to this.
Wonderful, thank you so much. Jürgen, a very warm good morning.
A very warm good morning. Well, I can’t quite live up to that expectation, but the question is whether I can pick myself back up, dear Sabine. I could only follow your discourse in phases. I’m having enormous problems with the technology and the connection. So please forgive me if I’m maybe a bit behind now, because I noticed and heard from the last contributions that it’s heading in a very specific direction now, toward current politics. My fundamental question, which could have been there from the start, would have been, as I’ve also repeatedly raised and asked in the other rooms, or put to the room, what actually is the specific power and violence in connection with politics? For example, a really stark example, I asked this question back then too, what’s the specific feature of power and violence in art, for example, or in music? And I don’t want to put that to the room now, but as I said, it might go past the progress of your discussion. But for me, this specific feature of power and violence in politics is that a community, the polis, so all of us together, have transferred a power. That’s something extraordinary, if you reflect on the other rooms we’ve already had. There was no one who said, I’m now transferring my power, which I originally have, onto the artist. No, with politics there’s a constitution for that. That means, elections, and the sovereign transfers his very own power, which we all have, onto a specific form of parliamentarianism. That’s significant for me with regard to the power relation to politics. And what’s the consequence of that? What’s actually the benefit from this transfer? Something should be generated as an additional benefit. And this benefit is basically the power of our politics to pass laws. Because none of us, even though we’re sovereign and empower someone through political parties, has, if acting alone in the polis, in the community, the power to pass laws. That’s the significant part for me, how power expresses itself in politics. And regarding violence, if I may say this too, you really have to let this sink in, when we talk about the separation of powers like this. That means, the power-holder, in quotation marks, so our legislature, executive, our parliamentarianism, confesses ad hoc to the constitution of power, and to prevent abuses, I believe you’ve already addressed this, divides it into different sectors. And these are, in my view, the two essential forms of expression of power and violence with regard to politics, mind you, now reflected on our democratic, our free democratic basic order. If this is now going past your topic as an afterthought, I ask for your understanding, and I’ll gladly keep listening to you. Thank you.
Thank you so much. I think that fits in absolutely well. And maybe you’d also like to say something about what was picked up last, which was also very specifically brought up with concrete examples regarding current politics, so to speak, or would you rather abstain from that?
No, well, I have to pick this up a bit from especially the last context, where it’s obviously about erasing, or the current situation regarding the AfD and so on. I’d like to add two positions additionally, generally. This transfer of power from each of us individually to the sovereign doesn’t mean that I’m giving up my political will for the next four years, switching it off, waiting until there’s another election, but rather political activity and also political responsibility — as sovereigns we continue to act, even though we’ve voted. This responsibility remains, namely to engage in political life and exert influence on how this power is also exercised. Our democratic basic order has set very clear rules for that too, to prevent abuse. But there are definitely possibilities, even during this period of power transfer, to engage at various levels, whether municipal, whether through district administrators and political representatives. So, handing it over doesn’t mean stopping to think politically. That’s the first thing. And the second thing, which is particularly essential for me from the current situation, is that increasingly, in my view, arguments are made with abbreviations, with labeling of supposed or objectively comprehensible political opinions in the form of party affiliations. The AfD wants, and the CDU wants, and the Greens want to lead us into dictatorship, and so on. What’s increasingly slipping away is that people make the effort to actually hold a discourse, on the level of the facts. Not about what parties have written into their own platform, but about the topic that’s currently moving people, detached from the parties’ positions, just to make this will transparent, what would actually need to happen? And this sliding away from the objectively comprehensible factual reference toward a supposed party-political doctrine, that’s something I notice increasingly, and it displeases me. I wanted to add that too. Thank you for listening.
Yes, wonderful, thank you so much, I think that’s another really important point you’re bringing in. Vera, Sabine, would you like to add something here too?
Sabine, go ahead.
Yes, two things have happened here in the area, and probably these aren’t isolated incidents, but will happen everywhere in the federal territory, which really gives you pause. In a smaller municipality that was actually doing very, very well, the entire municipal council resigned, because they said that what gets decided at the federal level often also affects municipalities, and the municipalities simply don’t have the money for it, it just doesn’t fit together anymore in some cases. And here, this went quite clearly through the press in Ludwigshafen, BASF as a big company that’s also partly relocating, that went through the press too, the mayor left the SPD. She’s still mayor, but has turned her back on the party. And these are things that go a bit in the direction of what Mr. Jürgen just said, you simply have to make the effort to understand what’s behind it. But you also have to say, basically the municipal politics, state politics, federal politics, they can’t attack each other and foul the nest, so to speak, which then just isn’t implementable anymore. Yes, that’s what I wanted to briefly say.
Yes, thank you so much. Vera, would you like to add here too, before we slowly move into the closing round for today?
Yes, two things. On one hand we said, when it comes to elections, party platforms. And based on the party platforms, the statements of the individual parties get classified, or whatever. So that’s also what I expect from party XY or from party XY. If it’s different, then they’re already deviants, or they’re not doing what the party wants, and yes, get questioned again too. And what Sabine said, that’s a huge problem for us. Through the many, many different levels, different tax revenues, depending on the tax type, whether the municipality gets it, the state gets it, or it’s a federal tax, and thus expenditures also have to be covered. That’s something I think absolutely needs to be reformed here, exactly so this problem, as Sabine just said, doesn’t happen anymore, well, less of it, it’ll never fully go away, but it could work better.
Yes, thank you so much. I think a lot has come together, especially this last point, this discrepancy that occurs. That certain things get decided at a higher level, for example, which then represent massive challenges in implementation. You could maybe provide budget or similar at one point or another, depending on what topics are involved right now. We don’t have a specific topic here right now, but ultimately, if we now, I’m thinking, I’m in search mode right now, exactly these caps, for example on prices for natural gas, electricity and so on, that’s maybe another example one could pick up in this context and bring in, where a decision is made via politics, so to speak, that’s affected, that on a regulated market, in the energy market, that then has to be implemented by the companies dealing with electricity and gas supply. And that was, for example, a huge undertaking for those who then had to implement it, because it’s not just some budgets that need to be made available and then the matter is settled, but there’s a huge procedure behind it, a whole chain of administration, process structuring and so on and so forth, to actually be able to get that into implementation within the company, at this concrete example, and then in such a short time too. So time plays a role here, time with a deadline on one hand, then on the other hand we have resources like employees, the internal processes that need to be considered, and so on. So here, if you look more closely, you’ll discover big gaps at many points too. So I find this aspect really nice too, that we got that in at the end as well. I think a lot of very different perspectives came in through the different impulses, and I found it completely fine that we slowly, step by step, at various points with various — we approach the topic from this or that perspective to look at it again, and now I’m curious what the highlights were for you at the end of the room.
Vera, Sabine.
Well, I had a lot of question marks at the beginning of the room, I have a few more now, and I think I’ll keep thinking about it all day, about what’s been said now and what hasn’t been said yet either, which also belongs to the topic. Thank you.
Yes, great, thank you so much. Sabine.
I’m still thinking about the title, violence in politics, that it’s more like an underground kind of violence, violence and power being very similar there to the topic I mentioned at the end. That also brings to mind the area of education, where Berlin politics with the education ministry is actually quite far removed from what happens locally. Maybe we need an education reform at the federal level that maybe tackles federalism itself. Otherwise, this topic could certainly be explored deeper, though it always gets very political then. Thank you, and have a nice day.
Yes, thank you so much. And we always come back here to the topic of education as a basis, so to speak. It’s an important topic and remains an important topic. So, on one hand for enlightenment, on the other hand to create awareness, and against the background of awareness, then maybe also be able to make your own decisions and similar things. Education understood as self-determination, self-organization, self-efficacy, and establishing life competence. That’s the original educational mandate, which also applies to Germany. Mind you, the distinction here again, we’re not talking about school or school structures as they’re lived today, but about the original educational mandate, which we unfortunately still don’t fulfill in many places, and where reform would therefore also be called for in many places. It becomes clear again and again, here too, that it’s important to actually have education as a basis. And I’d like to pick up on one point from earlier again as my highlight, because something was mentioned, like for example, that we notice with alarm or are shocked to find that one party or another, and that depends on our personal stances, is on the rise here. Quite concretely, that’s probably repeatedly hinting at the AfD in many contexts now. Nevertheless, it’s ultimately a party that was also voted for and that’s sitting here with us. And a lot of discussions often go in the direction of stopping it or something. On the other hand, that’s also something Vera said so nicely earlier, that’s just democracy, and the election results are also just a kind of sign of what’s developed in the meantime, so that someone has decided to transfer their vote to one party or another. And here the question arises, what happened in the meantime, or why are there certain tendencies. And that it’s not a solution, in quotation marks, along the lines of, we somehow have to fight one party or the other, and in quotation marks, basically from my point of view, that’s not the task of another party either, not even one of those in power, but rather to look at your own doorstep here and do enlightenment work, work on the matter in general, and also create education as a basis, so that people, against the background of aspects like what we’ve picked up, what’s fake news, being able to distinguish information from fake news and so on, then, with the corresponding enlightenment, with the corresponding debates and discourse, and that’s what makes up a democracy, then cast their vote accordingly. And if the votes are accordingly, then I see that as “unproblematic,” but if the gap keeps growing. And there I look very strongly at education at this point, that many don’t go to vote anymore, others no longer know who to vote for, and yet others do vote, but maybe as a protest, out of protest, and yet many others vote and don’t really know what they’re actually voting for, then that’s, among other things, from my point of view also an education problem at this point. And that’s why I found it nice that this came in with this aspect of reform too.
Yes, wonderful. Thank you so much. I think it was very diverse in the perspectives we looked at here. Tomorrow we continue with power and violence in religion, because religion also plays a decisive role in many different places, even if we’re maybe not so aware of it. And so we’d like to engage tomorrow with the question of how religion influences power and violence structures in society, to look at it from this perspective. I’m really looking forward to it, you’re warmly invited to join tomorrow morning when we come together at 8am German time in the Deep Talk Club. Thank you, dear ones, see you tomorrow. Ciao. Ciao.
