#903 Democracy in Danger?

Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: when China calls itself “the better democracy,” is that a sign the word itself has stopped meaning anything — or a masterclass in wording that should worry us more than we think? In Room #903 of the Deep Talk Club, under our overarching theme “Pioneering Spirit with brAIn,” the group draws the line between “danger” and “risk” in democratic theory, dissects a Chinese propaganda argument comparing Xi Jinping to a kung fu master, and asks whether the real threat isn’t a party on the fringe but a citizenry that’s stopped reading party platforms altogether. 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 good morning to you. Today we’re continuing with “Democracy in Danger?” We had an interesting, stimulating discussion yesterday. So the topic fits quite well today too, to go into a continuation. On one hand we’ve picked up various topics under the roof “Pioneering Spirit with brAIn,” where it was also about aspects like centralization, decentralization, globalization, deglobalization etc. And yesterday we also talked about the WHO, and we also touched on aspects like overarching or supranational institutions, organizations, so to speak, that are supposed to steer one thing or another even more in the future. And of course we can pick up on one thing or another there and continue too. And the question we want to deal with today is, in what direction is our society actually currently changing, if we look at the developments against the background of forms of governance. And by forms of governance I mean things like, I don’t know, federalism, democracy, socialism, monarchy and so on. So that we maybe take another look at what’s out there and which direction that could go. Sociology I just said, I think, I meant socialism. So that we look a bit further at what aspects we can pick up there, and what developments we’re observing, what speaks for this development, or how we maybe bring that together with, overlay it onto, one form of governance or another. And it might also make sense to briefly touch on one form or another, without going too deep, to make sure that within the 60 minutes we can also open up various perspectives and get into a reflection accordingly here in exchange. Exactly, and I’m really curious what you say about that. And you’re warmly invited to join and simply bring your first thoughts into the room, to then see what develops from that. In that sense, once more a quick reminder that the room is recorded the entire time too. And accordingly, if you join, you automatically agree that it will be published. Whoever doesn’t want that for whatever reason, or can’t speak right now or similar, of course also has the opportunity to simply enter the exchange via the chat, put in questions, or also thoughts that we can then pick up on one thing or another during the course of the room too. And with that I’ll gladly mute myself first, and see who’d like to join.

A very good morning, dear Marc. What do you say about the topic?

Honestly, one moment. Sorry, I thought I had the mic off. Sorry, I specifically said — one moment, good morning to the group first. I have to say honestly, I dropped out of that yesterday and approached the topic differently. I tried to stick to one topic, which forms of governance exist, and on the first try I found parliamentarism, parliamentary democracy, presidential democracy, semi-presidential democracy, direct-deliberative democracy and so on, and then I closed the book and said, no, that’s too much for me now, I’m just not an expert there, and then I just sat down and thought, okay, what comes to mind spontaneously? And then of course democracy, and then dictatorships, what comes to mind. And then, dear Yasemin, and now I’ll loop back, I want to thank you for the golden moment we had yesterday, for your explanation of the Lanz show, and that was such a huge learning effect again, and I’ll quote once more, Andreas Wollermann, “Do you listen to understand, or to answer?” That applies for me not just to Generation Z, but to all topics. And what you did there, reiterating it, approaching every topic we tackle by asking, questioning, understanding, paying attention to the wording, to the meaning, the clarity and so on. And now I’ll also say why I mentioned that again, because I then engaged with China, since I hadn’t found quick answers for myself on what forms of governance exist, in order to be able to give a talk here, or explain it, I came across a really interesting article, specifically with the wording that China — and I’ll also explain right away how they do that — that China calls itself the better democracy, and I found that totally exciting, because there we’re back at the wording, we talk twice about democracy, how do forms of governance change our society, but if we use different wording and China says they’re the better democracy, then we’re talking about democracy every time, and yet we have two different systems with the same word.

Yes, great. Thank you so, so much. Yes, one and the same word, quite different understandings behind it, so to speak. And that confirms again why it’s always so important, when we talk about the same terms, to keep looking at what we actually understand by them, because it can indeed be quite, quite different. On one hand of course it has to do with cultural background too, with how it’s stored with us, also emotionally, but it can also diverge completely, especially now with this understanding of democracy for example, that it’s not only interpreted completely differently, but really different pillars and so on are drawn upon too, and that’s not related to a single person, but you’d certainly see a really big difference, even if you conducted a survey now, what we understand by it here in our country and what that can certainly mean in another country. That’s an extreme example, I think, regarding democracy, if you open up a comparison between China and Germany now. And I’m quite certain, even if we look at other political currents or something, in different countries too, there are certainly differences in the understanding of democracy there too. Maybe not diverging quite as extremely at that point. But still shaped, also configured differently, how for example the implementation of democracy is carried out. Exactly, so very, very exciting. Would you like to connect again there, Marc?

Yes, I read up on that, and I’d really love to share that with you, specifically it’s the wording. That’s why I gave the compliment. The wording is so brilliant when you see how it works, and I found out, or a page written in Chinese said, first regarding democracy, first it has to be clarified that democracy is a historically shaped term for which there are no fixed standards, and tactically, discussion or wording or storytelling is, for me, like a chess game. And if I say democracy is not a historically… is a historically shaped term, and that overrides everything, and then comes the explanation — I didn’t know that, I read that in an article, how the Chinese explain that of course too. Of course it would be far too simple to say, we’re a democracy too, we’d all cry out, that’s clear. Now I also have to prove that, and the proof follows in the form of TV segments, and I found it so exciting how that’s done, and there was a film on Chinese TV where they said, can you imagine, in America they run for election, so there’s an Obama president, and what has he done? Nothing, he did nothing, he just wants to be elected, he has a lot of money and promises something, he hasn’t achieved anything for his country. That’s what they call democracy? That can’t be serious. I, Marc, the Chinese president, have been in office for so long and have done good and good and good things. And then they compare that to a kung fu master, who studies for years, who keeps getting better, who keeps doing the same thing. And I’m talking about the achievements I’ve made for the country. That’s true democracy. The achievement I’ve delivered. And then it’s only sensible that my system is better than someone who’s done nothing at all and just promises things he can’t deliver anyway. And we have to evaluate based on achievement, and, and, and. And this chain of argumentation, and that’s why I find it so fascinating, because things aren’t just claimed there, but rather we’re back at storytelling, and then seeing what happens to us, which techniques people apply, to recognize these mechanisms, in order to actually be able to form a new opinion, because it’s not just about using a word, but also the complete chain of argumentation that’s used, I find that really, really exciting and interesting.

Yes, thank you so, so much. And what this particularly shows me in this context is that it becomes clear that we can’t just pursue the question, so to speak, of democracy in danger, but rather first maybe pick up again on what we actually understand by democracy at this point. Jürgen, a very good morning. What do you say about the topic?

Nice setup. Thank you, dear Yasemin. Thank you, dear Marc. The essential thing, I think, especially with this topic, lies in the clear definition of the terminology, what we’re actually talking about. And I also think agreeing on that is the first step, once again, to reducing complexity. Dear Marc, heartfelt thanks for your example, because it’s exactly a case where, in my view, we should be terminologically clean. You spoke in your introduction about forms of governance, dear Yasemin. That’s, in my view, the absolutely correct term, namely the forms of governance in the form of a democracy, an autocracy, a dictatorship, or ochlocracy also describe our democracy as one form of leading a country. Interesting, though, is also the second term you have to consider when looking at these various forms of expression — do we have a democracy, like presumably here in Germany, or an autocracy, or even a dictatorship in China. This second term is the specific form of “state form.” And every form of governance, so also democracy, has a specific configuration of state form. And specifically, the state form says how this form of governance is lived, and organized and structured. And dear Marc, I’d like to leave it at just this reference to the meaning of these two terms for now. Dear Marc, the Chinese are, in my view, absolutely right, in a sense, because they say, we define our form of governance as a democracy, because in its specific configuration it happens in a rational form, meaning quite specific selected people, who of course are in the Communist Party, decide what’s good for the people, or for the country. And the state form itself, for us, defines itself, to make it a bit more concrete, especially through our three-pillar model, the executive, judicial, and legislative branches. These two terms and their content should, in my view, be considered together in discussing today’s topic, what’s actually in danger? Democracy. Because with just “democracy” we’d only be defining the danger for the form of governance, and discussing and dealing with that, but not the state form. I hope I got that across reasonably well, and let me just say one more thing. The second meta-level under our presumed democratic understanding is a specification into liberal and electoral democracy. That’s where a really clear difference actually already starts to open up, which is denied, or in the rarest cases even addressed, not least by the media. But it has serious consequences. Thank you for listening.

Thank you so, so much. Could you please repeat the last point again, because that came a bit unexpectedly at that point, so I couldn’t quite follow anymore. Did you mean this part with the liberal and electoral democracy?

Exactly. The breaking down of democracy, in its simplest form defined as the rule of the people, the sovereign, has, at the next finer level, or the next level below that structurally, a distinction into so-called liberal democracies and electoral democracies. That means, to anchor it with an example, we here have a liberal democracy, because the sovereign, by casting their vote, passes on their power mandate to a parliamentarism that’s bound to a separation of powers into executive, judicial, and legislative, precisely to prevent, based on experiences from our countless past and humanity as a whole, that the people have voted, and once I’m elected, I can now do whatever I want. The electoral democracy is actually a bit of a misnomer, which basically says, it’s an elected democracy. Yes, it’s elected. And now comes this distinction between form of governance and state form. But how the elected then deal with that, according to the motto, now I’m elected, and for the next four years you have to shut up and accept what we do. That’s a really serious difference. And these state forms also exist in our European environment too. I hope I’ve answered your question sufficiently, dear Yasemin.

Yes, thank you so, so much. And that then, I directly think of Baerbock’s remark, where she said she’d made commitments regardless of what the people think about it. That’s maybe the first thing that comes to mind directly for me. I find that totally exciting. Thank you so, so much, dear Jürgen, for breaking that down like that. I find that wonderful, and I’m really, really curious where Marc might want to connect too now.

I find that totally difficult. Thanks for giving the keyword with Baerbock, there was recently this CDU politician, the deputy prime minister of Bavaria, on TV, and he was heavily attacked by the country, and I also found it good that we absolutely have to pay attention to words. Because exactly what you said, he just phrased it differently, “we’re taking democracy back,” and those are words that, well, “we’re taking democracy back,” that we have to pay incredible attention to how we express ourselves, and the title of your room is Democracy in Danger, and what I observe, or, well, find exciting, not great, find exciting, and that also came up yesterday, was emphasized again, balance, that it’s about opinion, if you say, if once parties are in power that keep promises, where it’s no longer about content, elections aren’t won with content anymore today, you saw that with the district administrator election, but rather claims are made and promises given that partly aren’t even implementable at all. Yes okay, one person thinks, well once Marc is in power, we’ll see what Marc implements, and if he can’t keep that, then he just won’t be reelected. But that’s wrong, because as an example, the Sweden Democrats, Hungary and Poland were cited, that there are so, so many examples in Europe where elections are won through populism, where democracies are in danger, and where, through inaction, through not implementing the content that was promised, you can still win an election again. And I don’t have an answer for that now, what you could do about that. But that’s just a fact. Also, as I said, with non-implementation of content, with broken promises, with populism, you can also win elections again. Not just win once, but win again.

Yes, thank you so, so much. And Sabine has also raised her hand again, so I’d like to bring Sabine in. And then we can gladly draw connections again too. A very good morning, dear Sabine.

Yes, a very good morning. This morning I already heard, this is a victory for democracy, when it came to the fact that the Federal Constitutional Court, at the request of a CDU member yesterday, ensured that the Building Energy Act won’t go into second, third reading this week and be rushed through before the summer break. That was, I mean, I certainly find that good in terms of the matter itself, because the experts hadn’t had any time to look at it at all. They also talked about it, it was 180 pages. How are you supposed to go into depth there? Here you could only have accepted it, which of course was also the intention. On the other hand, I was a bit stunned how this is now being presented as a victory for democracy, which it certainly is, in part, if you compare it to what we currently have going on in Germany. We also had a general assembly at the chamber of commerce recently, and I have to say the tone is getting sharper. We always have to stay politically neutral, because we’re a representation of business, but I think it’s almost no longer possible. So the business owners expressed themselves a lot, there was of course a lot of discussion behind closed doors, and something was also presented in Berlin, where there was also a lot of discussion behind closed doors, very harsh discussion, and when the economics minister then joined, it was the friendliest tone, and the door was opened, the red carpet was rolled out. So there was one person who said, I no longer understand the world. That’s what I wanted to share.

Yes, very, very exciting. Thank you so, so much. Yes, Jürgen, you wanted to connect directly.

Yes, I’d like to connect directly. Thank you, dear Yasemin. Dear Sabine, thank you for your contribution. I see it differently. I do actually see it as a victory for democracy, because I personally established for myself, over the last months and years, that this three-pillar model in our country, judicial, executive, and legislative, no longer functions. I remind you, you’re from that field, I remind you of the lengthy and protracted discussions and also lawsuits before the Federal Constitutional Court regarding the softening of the strict rules that the ECB actually had to comply with regarding state financing. Something that’s undisputed in science, in economics, that we’re going down a path toward a debt union, which definitely isn’t the purpose and intent of this EU on one hand, and beyond that also exceeds the ECB’s competence. The Federal Constitutional Court showed several lawsuits from parties and individuals the red card multiple times, and…

…decided politically. And that’s why I took a deep breath yesterday and said, this three-pillar model does still seem to function. Please, my personal opinion. But basically I wanted to point out one more thing, I wasn’t done yet with the terminology, namely the topic of danger. You ask, dear Yasemin, Democracy in Danger. You don’t ask, is democracy at risk? And I think both apply permanently to us, to the citizenry. Because danger, as a latent occurrence of an existing threat that’s given, that I can recognize, if I stand before an abyss, the danger is that I’ll fall, the abyss is there. This danger, in quotation marks, exists in our democracy because, as sovereign, once every four years we hand over our power monopoly, a selection of parliamentarians, with our vote, and to a quite specific party, into their handling. So basically we expose ourselves to the danger that they won’t use this power monopoly in our interest. The risk, on the other hand, only exists for five minutes at the ballot box. Specifically, by me — and this is now of course individually pronounced — deciding for the wrong party. And I think that, alongside this distinction between form of governance and constitutional form, this distinction into the associated danger on one hand and risk, would have to be, now we’re back at the topic, an important educational-policy component that everyone should actually be aware of. So in that sense, heartfelt thanks again from me for today’s room, seen from the terminological perspective. Thank you.

Great. Thank you so, so much. And that shows, on one hand, the complexity that’s there again, and I find it wonderful how it’s broken down, what examples came in. And I saw Sabine would like to connect directly too.

Very gladly, Sabine.

I’d like to say something to Jürgen again. Jürgen, if you understood me to mean I don’t find what happened yesterday good, then that’s wrong — very good, especially for the industry I also work in indirectly, for the construction sector, since I do financing, and from that side certainly everyone’s glad it happened this way and not hanging like a sword of Damocles over things. What I actually wanted to express is proportionality. Here again two parties, or two systems currently in the coalition up for election, and the other side are actually trying again to somewhat — oh, now my Siri kicked in, sorry, I don’t know why — trying to jockey for position again, while many essential topics that really hang over us right now, and where you notice on every side, are being addressed far too little. But maybe you’re right, small steps are already a success, maybe the big ones come after.

Yes, thank you so, so much. Jürgen, direct connection.

Thank you, dear Yasemin. I think we understand each other. We’re certainly swimming side by side in the big stream. As I said, the perception of happiness differs, and to maybe make it understandable from my point of view once more — I experienced it as such an, I say this quite clearly and deliberately, such an impertinence and audacity, that a government tries, through time management, through time management, namely by shortening the possibility of getting a clear picture of the complexity of this heating law, in order to then form an opinion in parliament, and specifically the parliament is us, to form our opinion, to deliberately drive that into this corner, according to the motto, then I’ll just give them, I don’t know, three, four days, and it’ll be voted on. That’s why last night, unfortunately I can’t move much, but I almost jumped up from the sofa and shouted Gloria. That’s why that was my remark. Thank you.

Yes wonderful, thank you so, so much. And that’s not the only topic where it’s like that, but you can observe that with increasingly many topics that are complex, so to speak, over time it’s steered on one hand, and on the other hand, and here we’re at the aspect I already addressed in one of the last rooms, that various things aren’t discussed in the media at all, for example, but simply somehow behind closed doors, while we’re made aware of other things, so to speak, through media, led into the discussion and guided, and you’re really quite surprised what legislative changes etc. etc. exist in the background, about which no information actually takes place at all. That means, if you don’t stumble upon it yourself, through some research or similar, that you’re sometimes really felt to be completely cut off from what’s happening in the background. And that’s also very, very exciting to observe right now. So in that sense I really find this a very worthwhile topic, and also the aspect, Sabine, that you picked up, with the business owners, I find that really exciting too. Because on one hand, and we’ll probably all nod along to this, that there are important topics where it’s really relevant to talk about it too, and at various points where it’s necessary, to also say something or speak up, in quotation marks, and nevertheless exactly that’s been very strongly observable over the past years, that it happens less and less, which might also have something to do with one person or another possibly fearing certain consequences. And there we’re back at aspects like freedom of speech and so on. So all topics that keep coming up for discussion in recent years too. And in that sense I find that totally exciting. Marc, would you like to connect there too, since you haven’t spoken for a while?

Gladly. Yes, and one more point is really important to me. This isn’t my opinion, but I found it totally interesting, what was also discussed at Lanz’s show. Dear Jürgen, you just said the word “wrong party,” and thereupon Jans said, wrong party, that’s not about our opinion now, it’s about whether a party is banned or not banned. The party I mean can’t currently be banned, because politics is then afraid. If the party isn’t banned, and our topic is danger to democracy, then it belongs to democracy, because it’s a party that’s also allowed to be elected. And now I come back to Andreas Wollermann, who said, do we listen to understand or to answer? And there I come back to the wording. Right now all parties are trying to change their wording, so to save democracy, or also to pull people onto their side. And I first observed that with the previous president in the USA, how the wording changed completely. And the question, and the complexity for me, is simply, do we achieve anything through different wording? If we have different wording, we have to work on the content and the results, and ask ourselves how we can all together, each of us has the chance to protect democracy. But we won’t protect it by using words like “wrong party” and so on, because that won’t change the opinion and attitude of many people. To change or convince someone, you have to deliver conclusive answers, and what I currently observe is that no answers are being delivered, nowhere, not even in the heating debate, not even by the opposition, no answers delivered, but just the wording changes.

Yes, thank you so, so much. And I’d like to bring in two more impulses here, before we can then connect again. Jürgen, I saw that you raised your hand directly again too. First I’d like to bring in the aspect with the Federal Constitutional Court, that here increasingly the observation, or feeling too, to maybe not present it as fact yet, is increasingly arising among various people or circles of people, that it’s actually not really taking effect properly anymore. So on one hand possibly certain interests are somehow being supported or similar. Or, that for example legal framework conditions are beforehand changed accordingly, in quotation marks, at top speed, so that the Federal Constitutional Court then also acts conforming to that accordingly, maybe. But I don’t know if it’s clear what I mean with the issue here. That means, if legal framework conditions are quickly changed, so that you can no longer even go through the Federal Constitutional Court to undermine that, then that actually becomes a problem, in quotation marks. That’s why we may need to look more closely at what’s actually happening right now, and has happened increasingly and increasingly vehemently in recent years, all the way to certain things not being publicly discussed at all, but rather — and that’s what I meant with the feeling that one person or another has, that you don’t catch anything anymore, so you really have to try to stay on top of it yourself, to even get information about what legislative changes are actually taking place in the background, because that’s not brought to us via the media at all. And then with the parties I also agree, we have to be careful with the wording, and that a party being under observation, or something else, doesn’t yet mean it’s banned. As long as it’s not banned, this party exists, and accordingly can be elected, and is elected, and at the same time is also to be observed. And that doesn’t necessarily mean that all voters of the corresponding parties, to put it a bit more generally now, absolutely vote for certain parties because they’re absolutely one hundred percent behind this idea. And I find that also something quite concerning, especially in observing, but increasingly also hearing in exchange with people, that due to this feeling of powerlessness, in quotation marks, at one point or another, they either stop voting entirely, because who am I even supposed to vote for, there’s nobody left to vote for, or switch to an extreme position, saying, that’s the only chance to change something somehow, and whether one party or another, whichever we might be talking about, is then the “supposedly right choice,” so to speak. So now “right” not in the sense that the party is right or something, but if I actually don’t agree with the party’s basic ideas, and still vote for a party that goes in a completely different direction than my own conviction, so to speak. Just, in quotation marks, either to spite the other side, or to say, otherwise we won’t get any movement in. Somehow we have to move in a direction that maybe goes in an extremely different direction, to get movement back in here. However, the question then arises whether we’re not conjuring up much bigger, more far-reaching other challenges with that, whether that really helps us further. That’s a question we can actually just ask ourselves at this point. Jürgen, you wanted to say something on that, then Marc, and then we have another hand raised.

Yes, thank you, Yasemin. Regarding the remarks, let’s see — I’ll take a step back to the remarks before that, to Marc too. And I’d like to bring in one more, alongside the essential terms we’ve already had today, in connection with our topic, especially regarding what concerns us as sovereign, that I consider extraordinarily important, and that’s accountability. Namely, when I’m sovereign in the form of a citizenry, then I’m not sovereign, la poila and by birthright, as before with the monarchy’s line of succession, but rather I have a responsibility to also behave as sovereign. And that especially includes informing myself, and not settling for the level of a party’s more or less election-campaign buzzwords and a partisan narrative. That means for me, I’ll give an example from the last federal election campaign. I ran this, you all surely know it, this Wahl-O-Mat, and had it suggest to me which party I’d actually have to vote for. But then I also made the effort, and now I’m at accountability, I made the effort to read all the party programs of the biggest parties, because I believe I don’t vote for a party, but rather I vote for what this party, how it understands itself, how it positions itself in our democratic construct, and what it wants. Whether that’s then actually implemented is a different topic, we should leave that aside. But the essential thing, and now I come to the topic you also raised, media, what’s communicated to us via the media? That’s the only way, from my point of view, for a sovereign to constructively engage with the facts when making a decision at an election, and critically engage with them, not with a narrative that’s more or less manipulatively preached to us every day at Lanz’s or Maischberger’s show, but rather that I at least take the step, in my accountability, to say, now I’ll actually read through how they see themselves, how they position themselves, and what they want. And if you look at today’s situation, what happens with, and how we as sovereign are supplied, mainly by the leading media, that’s exactly counter to this accountability, because it’s quite deliberately — I always say this, watch out, my own opinion — quite deliberately manipulated in a political direction. Because it’s no longer argued, and in most cases anchored to quite specific statements and intentions, but rather it’s left at the level of buzzwording, mostly with the term or the naming of the party. And that’s then classified into a corresponding politically opportune or non-opportune position. I’ve already mentioned this in a room before, let me repeat it. I highly recommend Lanz’s counterpart on his blog, David Precht. In my view he’s written a wonderful book about our media structure right now, called “Freedom for All.” And in barely 300, 400 pages he expresses so clearly and distinctly, in all its facets, how, basically — you also talk about this — this fourth estate, journalism and the media, has meanwhile developed into the dominant, leading form of governance, expression. And all the more we’re responsible to be critical, to ask, to question, is that a fact or is it an opinion? And if it’s a fact, then tell me where I can verify it. Thank you for listening.

Yes wonderful, thank you so, so much. And that probably makes it logically clear why we’re continuing tomorrow with the room topic Media (Censorship). So we can gladly pick that up tomorrow and go deeper into it too. Regarding the copyright and the book, I can only say, it’s also been strongly and much criticized, especially by the media. There was quite an outcry accordingly, and various shows about it. So it’s worth looking at more closely too. We can gladly do that tomorrow with the fitting topic accordingly. Marc wanted to add something too, and then I’d like to bring in Tom too.

I’ll keep it short. What Jürgen said keeps coming up in our rooms, responsibility and not finger-pointing. And we can all take responsibility ourselves. Thanks.

Yes, thank you so, so much. Tom, a very good morning, and I’m curious what you’d like to add.

Yes, good morning everyone. It’s probably not that much, but simply another point of view, and really just on the surface, without talking about it for long. I actually understand democracy, regarding parties, exactly like Jürgen said. I don’t vote for the party, but ideally I vote for the program, and as a voter I expect that this program is of course something the party itself orients itself by. My impression is quite often that what’s written in a program often doesn’t match what the party actually implements afterward. And now I come to an important point. I understand this word “voter mandate” fairly strictly. So I have little room for interpretation there. And voter mandate means I have nothing other than a voter program, which puts me in the position to vote for someone with a clear conscience, or not. And if that keeps being broken, then the consequence is that you increasingly lose trust in politics and trust in parties. The simplest, and I think, in quotation marks, cheapest example is actually this big promise from Mrs. Merkel, that we’d digitize Germany at breakneck speed and now really get going, that we’d close our technological gaps. That didn’t happen in that direction over ten and twelve years. And now comes the phenomenon, why does such a party keep managing to come out on top again? In my view, quite simply, we’re unfortunately all very, very forgetful, and we all have different interests, different levels of interest in politics, which means we quickly forget these big sentences, promises, that always occur more intensely around an election cycle, again. And then we look at the new programs again. And if we like the new programs, we take the party that represents these programs, but we’ve long since suppressed that so, so many things didn’t happen on the citizen’s mandate. And I think there’s still a need for action there, namely in the form that, if a party doesn’t stick to its program like that, that has to be sanctioned in some form, I don’t want to say. But it has to be noticeable for the party that that doesn’t work like that. The possibility of simply no longer voting for a party doesn’t really work, because we’re forgetful. Really big problem. And last sentence, everything that happens, even if we don’t like it, is in my eyes actually always the price of democracy. Maybe I’m also missing one thing, this law that was supposed to be pushed through within eight days. If that’s something people complain about, saying that doesn’t match my democratic understanding, then I ask myself, why don’t…

…the majorities then develop exactly a rule for that, that prohibits pushing through such important things in such a short time, or wanting to. If we built in a small barrier for that, then that wouldn’t be a topic we’d have to discuss anymore. Thanks, that’s it.

Yes, thank you so, so much, and from that, however, another question arises for me too. Well, what can be done? So what’s the solution at this point? Are there possible solutions? Not the last point you addressed now, Tom, but if we observe that it apparently increasingly happens that parties, after being elected for example, don’t implement certain things as stated in their program, but suddenly stand for other things and so on, then the question arises what to do about it. And that’s maybe another interesting question we can briefly address, before we can also slowly move into the closing round for today. Jürgen.

Yes, that’s a very good question that logically arises. Thank you for your contribution, dear Tom. There are, I still think, two alternative forms currently being very strongly discussed, from both sides. Specifically there’s this proposal, I believe mainly carried by the Greens and the Left, to introduce citizens’ councils. Citizens’ councils, without specifying now by what qualification, and to what extent they come about, that are supposed to heal exactly this, during the four-year absence period of the sovereign, after they’ve handed over their monopoly on power, by, through this structure, being able to or should be able to exert influence on parliamentary decision-making and then on government work during this time. That’s one side, which I regard as quite positive, regardless of which political color and direction it comes from. But it hits exactly this point, that I say, yes, we cast our vote, and then we’re exposed to arbitrariness for better or worse. I’m really overstretching now — the counter-position also appeared on the scene immediately though, namely that the proposal also came from the same party to extend the legislative period to five years. So extending the time of the sovereign’s direct intervention from four years to five years, with the behavioral argument that this makes governing and settling into a term of government somewhat easier of course. So from just these two counter-positions alone you can gather, it’s a problem. And related to our topic today, I can say, danger recognized from many sides. Recognized. This kind of form of delegating our will as sovereign, I’m really sticking my neck out now, can, given the complexities and problems we have, no longer have a future. Thank you for listening.

Thank you so, so much. And I’ll gladly reformulate the question, connecting to what you just said, whether these are now solution approaches like citizens’ councils or similar. Ultimately that’s still something we don’t currently have any influence on again first. That means, if we sum up and say, democracy in danger, check, danger recognized, what’s the solution now? So what’s the mandate for us as a people at this point? What needs to happen next now? Where do we have leverage? Jürgen, gladly again.

To answer that directly, to take up our responsibility as sovereign. We have representatives in every city, in every district, and in every federal state where we reside, whom we elect, and we have the option to conduct political work ourselves, by joining a party and directly exerting influence there ourselves, even if that’s a drop in the bucket. I don’t think I need to repeat that in our circle. It simply doesn’t count as an argument, what can I even change? No, the only one who can change something, or the only ones, are us. And we have the instrument. We just have to face the accountability, and have to take the possibilities in the framework of our given democracy into our own hands, through influencing our district administrator for example, here in my area, or even better, through political work ourselves. We can do something, and we have to do it, dear Yasemin.

Yes, thank you so, so much, and I’d like to connect to that now, and then gladly give Tom and Marc the opportunity again too, before we then move into the closing round. From that, however, the consequence for me is what we briefly addressed earlier, that many business owners, for example, to maintain neutrality, at least outwardly in public, simply remain silent at many points. That it’s to be recognized here now, though, that this silence, in the sense of neutrality, is maybe simply also a silence at the wrong point — I like to and deliberately use the word “wrong” in quotation marks — but rather now actually taking on the responsibility, standing up for what we think, and accordingly also becoming active, is more important now than ever. And I’ll gladly put a question mark on that again. You’re welcome to reference that again too, maybe you see it differently too. Tom.

Yes, what you say isn’t wrong. And another thought occurred to me. Why is that actually the way it is? By that I mean a lot of dissatisfaction, palpable dissatisfaction, and increasingly so compared to the last many years. I think it’s simply due to the fact that democracy itself, if you wanted to implement it literally, would mean a whole, whole lot of work. And now it gets tricky, namely for everyone not in politics too, it’s also a lot of work for them. Because if we always wanted to act as the people wish, that would mean we’d have to be able to hear the people’s opinion again on almost every topic. And now let’s assume it would be possible to hear the people’s opinion on every topic, then some things would certainly look quite different. But we don’t have that possibility. We don’t have an app where we can simply click on the questions currently relevant in politics and say, for, against, don’t care. That simply doesn’t exist. And that’s exactly the gap, I believe, that makes it possible for those who have a voter mandate to be freed up in a way that they can act independently. Because the people themselves, in many areas, don’t have the interest, or the leisure, the energy, maybe too lazy, whatever the reason might be, to really intervene there and correct things. And that’s exactly why we have to, in quotation marks, put up with what politics invents or develops up top and then pushes through.

Yes wonderful, thank you so, so much, and that fits again with our overarching theme, Pioneering Spirit with brAIn, so to speak, because we’ve looked at all these technological developments too. That means there are possibilities here, whether that’s now an app or whatever other possibilities are used, but certainly technologically feasible. That means going new ways of thinking here too, maybe making new forms possible too, to open up one door or another too, to be able to steer certain things back in the right direction again, in quotation marks, and also gather opinion again nonetheless, and we’ll gladly discuss that tomorrow at this media censorship topic. I also still look at such developments with concern though, because I’m not sure — yes, then you can gather opinion, but who actually forms the opinion? And then we’re back at the foundation we keep talking about, for a self-determined, self-efficacious and life-competent life we want to lead, in a certain autonomy, and also thought of societally, communally societally, this basis is really totally important too. And that means, so that we can responsibly give opinions via such apps, in quotation marks, so not just opinion, but really also form an opinion, a well-founded opinion, that’s maybe also fact-oriented and so on and so forth, it’s important not just to consume media, but also to be put in the position, for example, to critically question things we see in a TV program, regardless of which expert presents them, in quotation marks, not just to consume them, and to just be steered in a certain direction through certain news we read or similar, simply uncritically, but to actually be able to form our own opinion too. Marc, you wanted to connect here again too.

Yes, I have another really important point, dear Jürgen. We talked about expropriation. Now I just want to invite you all to a thought experiment. Specifically, my point is, if the will of the people counts, counts more than what judges and laws say, and I found a party, and I just claim I don’t want to spend money on modernization, I want everything to stay as it is, no more migration, out of the euro and so on and so forth, and I’d manage, because I can talk well, to get 60 percent in Germany, then that’s the will of the people, then we’d do that, and that’s exactly the difficulty I personally have with that. The will of the people counts, if good populists push through things that are absolutely nonsensical, that are absolutely, I don’t know what, or that aren’t implementable, then that would be the will of the people, and then the will of the people would place itself above existing laws, legal order, and state form. And that makes the whole thing so complex again. Thanks.

Yes, and there too we’re back at this education topic, dear Marc. That means, if the foundation is right, then I think we can go in here with a certain trust that it’ll then take effect and function too, provided the basis is right. And to establish this basis, we may also demand accordingly at this point that the educational mandate is implemented too, and it’s not being implemented. And that’s why the gap keeps getting bigger accordingly too. And that, what we observe today, what we’ve observed over the past years, also has to do with the fact that this gap keeps getting bigger. And that won’t decrease, but will now also, through all the technologies we have, which are now also interacting together, so to speak, continue to increase in speed. And that’s why it’s so important to talk about these topics too, and to look at where and how we can also pitch in, and what contribution we can also make, to reestablish this basic work. With that I’d like to move into the closing round. We can gladly start with Jürgen, since he raised his hand again too, and then Marc, and then Tom, and then I’ll gladly wrap up for today. Jürgen.

Thank you, dear Yasemin. I wanted to make that my closing contribution anyway. First, I’ll do the Marc thing today again. I embrace you all for this room. Heartfelt thanks. It was very refreshing, the whole thing. And for me, my — you know, I always try to document that mentally in the form of a mind map, also for myself. I took away three terms for myself today as a meta-level from our discussion. Namely, on one hand that’s the topic of responsibility, responsibility has two aspects, our trust, from sovereign to the transfer to the power monopoly, to our representatives, and the third, as so often, not always, but as so often, the topic of education, and this triumvirate, responsibility, trust, and education, I see as the bracket over today’s topic, the question, into a, I’ll say, objective and also democracy-protecting position. It’s clear to me that a — I really call it a relapse into a form of organization, as it still partly functions today in Switzerland, that the village, or canton community, is consulted on every bigger problem, that that’s simply not organizationally feasible. But under, well, I’ll say, under this aspect of these connections, on one hand my own inherent responsibility as sovereign, my trust generated from that toward the one I hand this over to, and the basis for that, my political education, we would be, or are, not would be, are, I think, on quite a good path. Heartfelt thanks for this room, and see you tomorrow.

Thank you so, so much. Marc.

Thanks for your words, Jürgen. Responsibility, trust, education, those are so important that I want to repeat them. And I want to thank you for the always respectful way of discussing and talking with each other in this room. I feel very comfortable here, and I actually wish that everywhere. Thank you.

Thank you so, so much. Tom.

Yes, also brief and to the point. I find this triumvirate super interesting, and for me one word clearly stands out, because we haven’t experienced it like this for so many, many years before. This “more responsibility,” what I connect with that, becoming a bit more active in the right direction, so that things run the way you want them to. It doesn’t help me at all to wish for things, express a wish through a checkmark, and then be dissatisfied for four years, because none of what was in that funny program comes true. The moment we all become a bit more active, I imagine politics would change right away too. That’s it. Thanks.

Yes, great, dear ones. Thank you so, so much. I found it really, really inspiring, found it mega what came together again today from the various perspectives, the various thoughts, the differentiation of terminology, all that we picked up and discussed today. And I think there’s something for everyone to take away, just a few questions for yourself, a few thoughts to consider, and then figure out for yourself what to do with all that. And yes, tomorrow we’ll continue with Media (Censorship). So how free are media actually, and so on. And we’ve already touched on one point or another today, so to speak, on the sidelines. I’d like to pick that up again tomorrow and go deeper into it too, to make that connection to this aspect again. And we can gladly connect this to these three terms, responsibility, trust, and education, and make that connection here again too, and discuss this topic of media and media censorship together against this background. So in that sense I’m really looking forward to hopefully welcoming you here again tomorrow morning at 8 o’clock, and wish you all a wonderful day for now. Until then.