Democracy, as the rule of the people, is a classic paradox. The people, the actual sovereign of the state, have no power, decision-making or determining authority whatsoever in the modern form of democracy of the 22nd century.

The only way to maintain the illusion that the individual citizen has any possibility of influencing the fate of the state is to vote in an arbitrarily determined cycle. But that is not the case.

On the one hand, once elected, they do not have to adhere to election statements or program points, nor do they have to fear any kind of consequences for misconduct or wrong decisions. Only their own political clique determines whether and who has to resign for which behavior. Even then, it is not clear whether the political career was ended or only extremely slowed down and delayed.

This form of impunity and lawlessness, coupled with non-existent barriers to entry into the career of a professional politician, mainly attracts power-hungry and immoral people who are not or only rudimentarily suited to the actual task of representing the people in a meaningful and dignified manner.

But it is precisely these elected representatives, who hardly differ in their character image of a morally and ethically degenerate subject beyond party boundaries, who have a decisive influence on the fate of the people.

The envisaged separation of powers, which is intended to prevent an abuse of power, does not work, as the political office-holders largely determine the rules of the judiciary, which in turn controls the executive. There is therefore a power pyramid that only prevents the rapid and direct abuse of power, but not the creeping abuse that slowly erodes the protective mechanisms of democracy and can then lead to new forms of rule.

In recent history, Turkey and Russia are some of these examples.

Thus the paradox of modern German democracy is that the people are the rulers and yet have absolutely nothing to say.

To change this, the entire social system needs to be rethought. What may the parliament alone decide, where should the whole people be consulted? We need to move away from a party democracy towards a grassroots democracy with a new separation of powers that can successfully prevent the abuse of power.

A positive example of this is Switzerland

Many politicians and people in public life believe that the reference to our democracy or even the mere mention of democracy is something positive in itself.

It is easy to forget that democracy is not a homogeneous construct, that democracy does not exist in a context-free space and must always be seen in interaction with society, legal norms, state institutions and the current zeitgeist.

Democracy is not good per se, but rather the form of democracy practiced must be evaluated in its context. Depending on the assessment, the form of democracy can then be categorized as either a formal or a genuine democracy.

In a formal democracy, abuse of power, corruption and a deep state are not excluded. The ruling system has found ways to eliminate the control of the demos (the actual sovereign).

Now, even in a formal democracy, the boundaries between dsyfunctional and ineffective democracy are fluid. Furthermore, the principles of power, which have been shifted from the demos to a political elite, are different in the various forms of formal democracies.

What formal democracies have in common, however, is that acceptance among citizens erodes over time and dissatisfaction with the political system increases. The closer a formal democracy approaches the structures of an authoritarian state, the more likely the population is to accept a “capable autocrat” over an incompetent autocracy/technocracy that treats citizens in a similar way to an autocracy.

The path from a formal democracy to a de facto autocracy is gradual. In order to transform a formal democracy back into a real democracy, it is necessary to break up the prevailing political structures using the peaceful means of democracy.

German democracy is currently on a dangerous path away from genuine democracy towards a formal, autocratic form.

In the 21st century, many people are no longer directly affected by the daily struggle for survival. In this class, life is organized according to artificially created social rules that have grown regionally over thousands of years.

These rules are not questioned and are lived intuitively to a greater or lesser extent by each individual. They indirectly ensure that survival is secured. Money, relationships, power, to mention just the core elements. Of course, these rules are more multi-layered, more complex, more opaque.

Nevertheless, these rules can be recognized and questioned. From everyone. However, since these rules directly affect the quality and indirectly the duration of survival, they are part of the humanitarian problem: life and survival are almost never questioned. Even death is ignored for as long as possible.

On the one hand, this behavior is understandable, as it is deeply ingrained in humans as a survival instinct. On the other hand, the degrees of freedom of the mind make it possible to reflect on one’s own construction and to question one’s own behavior.

Of course, it is much easier to accept the status quo and ignore the potential of hidden opportunities, which is why very few people see the status quo as a problem. The status quo of someone trapped in an artificial social construct and the corset of basic instincts imposed by nature, who wanders aimlessly and without a plan in a world that despises and destroys humanity and only the fewest benefit from this man-made construct.

It takes a good deal of self-deception not to rebel against this perfidious system of rules and not to try to create a new one in which all people can live self-determined, fair and peaceful lives in harmony with nature and in perfect symbiosis with the rest of life.