By blu-news.org [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
I will not deny it: I love democracy. I always liked to walk with my mum to the polling station. I especially like to drop the note into the election, and woe the election helpers, who try to help me! All this despite the presumable results. Because the right to participate in the joint decisions is closely linked to a process that gave human dignity, freedom and equality, with the hope that this process will continue. According to this creed, I would nevertheless like to argue for democracy not ideologically, but pragmatically.
I do not want to look at the specific topic nationwide referenda, but more generally. The question is something like this: is it not dangerous to expand the democratic prerogatives, if the voters are often very ignorant (someone prefers: stupid ) and manipulable show? (But do we really know what society looks like? Is not it that we refer to our personal experience rather than to data when we talk about our society?)
But this is not the only form of skepticism towards democracy. There are also those who say that they are too inefficient and implicated for the present. Others even say that there is no real democracy at all. I consider these arguments to be instrumental, but at the same time I believe they are not entirely wrong. I will say more about that later, but for the first time I want to focus on one of my concerns. I fear the democratic timidity of those who are frightened by the irresponsibility of “the people”. In my opinion, they provide arguments for the enemies of democracy, which are actually authoritarian solutions (for example, if there was no democracy, no one would be legitimate to criticize authoritarian leadership styles, and, as such arguments might be, the leaders of the people, Distorted, more transparent representation).
At the same time, I wonder whether an expansion of democracy (within the framework of a fundamental law guaranteeing the fundamental rights) would not be necessary to prevent undemocratic developments. As a result of globalization, it became clear that the centers of power are becoming increasingly removed from the citizens. But this is partly unavoidable because global phenomena, such as climate change, can not only be answered at the local level. The side effects of this development, however, are that it is becoming increasingly difficult for citizens to exercise democratic control. More and more powerful economic actors who do not act democratically, politics can strongly influence our countries, both directly and through the work of various lobbies . In addition, the risk of a supposedly neutral technocracy should not be underestimated. In view of this, it is necessary to open up new democratic channels that will enable citizens to control the new globalized situation and help politicians not to lose contact with reality.
In addition, one can imagine that the opportunity for more voice would make the people more responsible. If we participate in a project, we are more interested in its success. Just as citizens would regard the public as their own, they would be more committed to a more desirable public. In contrast, the less you can participate, the less you perceive as your own and appreciate what is public. And in my opinion, many of the greatest problems facing mankind can only be found to be a satisfactory solution if the citizens of each country feel jointly responsible.
It is true that democracy has many limits. Frequently, democratic processes are not the ideal solution but the most fascinating. But perhaps it does not depend so much on democratic principles but on the competitive culture that the democracies hold. Democracy is perceived as a zero-sum game. In order to win such a game, the media often produces more propaganda than information, the politicians devote themselves more to the feelings than the reason of the citizens. In this sense, the “traditional” policy itself bears a serious responsibility for the populist waves based on simplified worldviews that you are currently facing.
But what if democracy were conceived as a space in which common paths are sought which are better than the original positions of the individual? What would be if the promotion of a humanist culture of co-responsibility and criticism became a common and self-evident presupposition of all political camps? Perhaps it is simply utopian. But I imagine, if this were to happen, democracies would be spaces where the most intelligent, human, and nonviolent choices would be chosen.
[MECHANICALLY TRANSLATED – 27-01-2017]