At the beginning of the 22nd century, people like to talk about freedom of opinion in a democracy. From the most diverse groups, interest groups and client lists. But it is precisely these people who are also practicing cancel culture, the attempt to silence dissenters.

There have been differences of opinion since time immemorial, which can degenerate into battles of opinion for various reasons. However, these differences of opinion do not disappear if one of these parties is to be silenced by media power, mainstream opinion and manipulation of the other side. The result is simply a hardened front that, in the worst-case scenario, can tear through society as a whole.

In the past, taboos were used to keep the dialog between opposing parties open without having to touch on sensitive topics that could lead to discord or even harassment. In modern societies, it should actually be possible to have a taboo-free discussion on all topics from divergent opinion groups.

But if you don’t give others room to think differently, if everything is always without alternative, then you have reached the end of any discussion.

Regardless of the topic, a discussion in a neutral, objective style should always be possible, as there can never be agreement on all topics in societies.

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.