The social debate about a general reduction in bureaucracy, one of the major reform challenges of modern times, is gathering pace. The burden on citizens/companies to provide the state with services free of charge that those affected do not want, want differently or want more efficiently is increasing everywhere.

In general, the organization, control and execution of tasks that are necessary for the planning, implementation and control of processes can be described as administration. Bureaucracy as the rule of administration is the elevation of administration to the status of reason of state. This is not negative per se, so bureaucracy, if used correctly, can have many advantages and there are good reasons to formalize and standardize certain areas of life. However, if bureaucracy becomes overpowering, the advantages turn into disadvantages. How can this happen?

In principle, efficient administration requires in-depth knowledge of the underlying processes and their process dependencies, not to mention formalization options and formalization restrictions in the process areas. If this knowledge is inaccurate, incorrect or insufficiently cross-process, something is formalized incompletely and chaotically, which is worse than never having formalized it at all.

The flexibility of action is lost without being able to achieve certainty of action and a quick result. The supposed positive of bureaucracy turns into the worst possible negative of the real world. Complicated, inflexible, expensive, slow, ineffective and ultimately unwanted. The more complex the processes and process interrelationships, the more difficult an efficient bureaucracy becomes and the more likely it is to ultimately fail.

What exactly is the problem with the excessive bureaucracy of the EU and the nation states, in this case Germany? There is too much regulation, harassment and sanctions in the wrong places and without effective controls. Bureaucracy should always focus on the final objectives, the measurement of these objectives and the costs of measurement/implementation. If the goal of an administrative process is not achieved, achieved too slowly or with too little benefit, then this administrative process must be improved.

There is nothing wrong with an improvement process if the initial process has already achieved 80% of its effect. However, if the initial process remains stuck at 20-30%, the costs for all participants increase exponentially without an improvement process being able to sharpen the focus in a meaningful way. The gap to 100% is simply too big.

This is the core problem of German bureaucracy: it usually ends up with such low target achievement figures that it helps no one, paralyzes everyone and costs without providing a comparative competitive advantage for those subject to the bureaucracy. The worst of all possible worlds. Bureaucracy unilaterally makes the bureaucrats and their helpers happy and disturbs social harmony in the worst possible way.

This kind of bureaucracy is the sure path to ruin.

Capitalism should promote competition, competition should be rewarded in the form of private property and market participants should be subject to as few controls as possible, so that in the end the system remains in balance for the benefit of all. So much for the simplified theory. In practice, the picture is often quite different.

Although there are many different forms of capitalism, such as the social market economy, neo-liberalism and state capitalism, to name but a few, they all share the basic idea of competition. Now competition is a euphemism for struggle and conflict, in the worst case by any means. If there is no suitable regulatory framework for unlimited competition, the consequences can be as unpleasant as desired for the losers of the capitalist system.

The losers are all those who were unable or unwilling to withstand the competitive pressure or were forced out of the market by unfair means. Because of the principle of competitiveness in any form of capitalism, a loser does not necessarily have to be bad; he is only, in some cases gradually, worse than the best. Bester also does not imply the height of the level. It is merely a comparative parameter that can be used as a basis for evaluating current human development. So a low level is possible despite competition.

Now, any system devised by man for man should only serve the great mass of people involved in this system. In this way, capitalism also increases the prosperity of many and promotes the equality of individuals. Provided that conflicts are always conducted in a fair and balanced manner, this basic principle would not be subject to much criticism. However, high competitive pressure in particular brings with it the temptation to reduce this pressure in its own interests as a dominant market player, often using disreputable means and methods.

Cartels, oligopolies and even monopolies, corruption, exploitation of nature and the weak, ruthlessness and even criminality can be the consequences of rampant capitalism. Without any controlling measures taken outside the capitalist system, this path of competition always leads to unequal distribution, exploitation and oppression of the weaker members of society.

The economic form of capitalism must be rethought from the ground up so that the few do not rule over the many, but so that everyone can live together in fair coexistence and at the same time increase prosperity for all.

The right to stand for election means that anyone of a certain age who is a German citizen and who has not been deprived of the right to vote due to political offenses may vote.

This minimum standard does not exclude retards, psychopaths and sociopaths, fanatics and zealots, as long as they have not committed a “political” offense. And the controls on delinquency are extremely lax. And this is precisely where the problem lies: with such a virtually non-existent standard, precisely those unsuitable people are attracted to politics who should never have become politicians in the first place.

A democracy can only function if it pushes the best people to make a contribution to society. And on the one hand, the best must be selected, so there must be an assessment standard that checks the prospective politicians for suitability and, on the other hand, the best must have a positive interest in serving society and their fellow human beings.

The standards to be applied could be determined by suitable scientific institutes on the one hand in feedback with a referendum on the other, so that the basis for filtering the suitable and the willing is laid democratically / professionally / scientifically.

The same should apply here: The higher the offices, the higher the standards that must be met. It is not enough to meet the minimum standards and then to have been a narcissist’s porter for 20 years in order to qualify for a high state office.

Whether there are still willing people who meet the standards and at the same time are prepared to work for a symbolic salary (current salaries of parliamentarians can be regarded as symbolic) is a question of social esteem.

People who have built up a reputation through outstanding political work will certainly be able to monetize this reputation after their political career. And whether this would be the only motivating factor remains to be seen.

If, as expected, no suitable candidates for political office can be found, either due to a lack of qualifications or a lack of pecuniary motivation, the result without representatives could not be worse than in the modern Berlin Republic, in which blind actionism does more harm to society than inaction ever could.