Ideas on Democracy

Optimism is a skill that requires proactive, resilient will to envisoin a better world. And it is much more rewarding. Of course, this does not mean we need to throw realism out of the window. But being optimistic is something we can all do. 

Our democracy is not perfect, yet there is no currently available and feasible alternative. This is because it is capable of learning: citizens can force politcians to change course.

However, democracy is per definition the weakest political system, because it is the only one that tolerates its enemies. Democracy requires proactive effort to build and maintain it.

There are concerns about democracy, but at least there are heavy debates concerning it. At least it is a topic of discussion and can be discussed.

In the USA, France and the UK, people supporting and voting for right populist parties are especially those without a secondary-school diploma.

Voters of the AfD (Germany), the Rassemblement National (France), Lega Nord (Italy) and Donald Trump (USA) have one thing in common: above-average fear of the future.

Fear stemming from the simultaneous large shifts in Geopolitics, Climate Crises, the work space (due to AI), traditional family ideals (eroding) and (im)migration.

Voters of the AfD do not want a different system, but are not satisfied with the current one. They feel excluded from politics.

The world faces a lot of economic inequality. If participation also comes at a financial price, then this economic inequality will quickly shift into a political one. And this opposes one of the ground principles of democracy through which it survives and thrives: equality.

This kind of financial system is the most democracy-friendly out of the rest. There has been no case where there has been democracy in a non-capitalistic system. Actually, in countries where non-capitalistic systems are implemented, such as in Cuba, North Korea or Nicaragua, there is also a lack of democracy.

Now, one could question the exact and rooted explanation for this rather than just assuming a direct correlation. Is it a cause or effect? How indirectly does one affect the other? Could another factor be at play?

It is true that capitalism is less dependent on democracy compared to the other way around. In history, and currently, there have been variance in the level of dependence, as well as varying types of democracies and capitalisms. This depends a lot on the culture and context it is observed in and through which lens.

• competition
• decisions by voting
• weighing up decisions
• negotiation
• rationalisation of purpose

they also have some shared enemies:

• uncontrolled clusters of power
• unpredictability
• violence
• war

From a relative longterm perspective, they both emerged as mass-phenomena in the 19th and 20th century. They have actually often supported and helped eachother prevail.

We have new dynamics emerging where the compatibility of liberal democracies and capitalism is questioned more and more. This can be unsettling if one defends the liberaldemocratic values (tolerance, seperation of powers, human rights, equality, democracy). This is due to the structural shifts in the media through digitalisation, and the connected decentralisation and fragmentation, leading to a lack of communication and social ability to communicate and discuss ideas and values. This in turn leads to polarisation.

The welfare state has begun harming its competitive and productive abilities through persistent increases in tax, the inability to deal with the demographic changes, and the loss of innovation and dynamic solutions.

The welfare state is important to keep capitalism civilised, to reduce inequality caused by it, and to keep it (capitalism) compatible with democracy

Democracy and capitalism function according to different dynamics. A spillover from one system into the other –capitalism into politics (like in the USA), or when politics tries to control the economy – leads to overall systemic damage.

The austrian school of economics, so widely taught and revered, does not seem to grasp this concept all too well. For more info, read The Bitcoin Standard (on my profile a summary). 

Bitcoin, for example, promises decentralisation and free handling of monetary assets. But would Bitcoin itself not be a spillover...?

% of world population living in a democracy: 2004: 51% --> 2024: 28%

% of world population living in a country with increasing autocracy: 2004: 7% --> 2024: 38%

General trend between countries' democracy index and GDP: positive correlation. Happiness index also, but not so evident.

It definitely causes polarisation, due to the algorithms feedinf extremist and biased information to users, and the fact that there is a very black-and-white view on politics, and the world, through the lens of social media. But the algorithms aren't to blame for the bigger problem. People are increasingly turning to revolutionary ideas and conspiracy theories. There is a lack of trust in institutions.

Social media's algorithms do cause polarisation and threaten democracy, but the main problem is that social media is controlled by very few with a lot of power. 

Obviously, we should supply people with better information, but we should not believe this alone will save democracy. Education and awareness can help, but we need to be constantly proactive about democracy.

A possible solution is to regulate the tech-sector appropriately. There are also new alternatives such as Bluesky or Mastodon which are essentially the same as Twitter and other big social media platforms, only more decentralised.

Where do we spend most of our time? At work.

Implementing democracy in the workplace leads to higher satisfaction, productivity and non-judgement. This can be achieved through engaging employees in decision making, more of a voice, clearing up disinformation and team building.

There are currently more democracies in the world than 30 or 40 years ago. Also, all over the world, questionnaires show that democracy is the most preferred political system. Only in one country is it only 20% of people that prefer democracy: Russia.

USA and China are interested in influencing the Arctic, to have access to the resources and raw materials available under the ice, but also to use the shipping routes in the Arctic Ocean that will become more and more accessible due to climate change. Russia is interested in the Ukraine due to its rare minerals and metals, and to have a higher infleunce on the black sea (which has great trade leveraging power). Although Russia cares about the Ukraine and its territory, it is orienting itself in terms of power more towards the North and South. 

Power is not defined in a large army, a large economy, a large territory or large population. This is all relevant, but to have global influence it all comes down to how you are connected – on a military, economical and diplomatic level.

We are talking lots about military spending, when really we should be investing in diplomacy just as much.

Parties should understand what people's fears are, and the AfD for example does this very well. However, when you look closely, they do not have any real solutions. It promises a return to the 'better days' as if we can reverse climate change, the wars and societal norms in an instant.

Bureaucracy is the operating system of democracy and the constitutional state. It offers legal certainty, impartiality with decisions and documentation of processes.

People want less bureaucracy. This must be taken into account. But the idea of destroying it is not an option (like in Argentina or USA right now). How can we have a bureaucratic system that makes sense?

• views of citizens and organisations must be taken into account
• processes must be more accessible and faster
• decisions where those involved have no discretionary power should be digitalised in a clear way

The administration is the place where citizens get to learn from and about the state. But one only experiences this when one is at court (judiciary) or from the media (legislative). The only interaction is through the executive, which is experienced in the day-to-day life: the public transport, schools, rubbish services, tax offices. Off of this the citizen can judge whether they are satisfied with the state.

If the state does not deliver on what it promises or its citizens need, and instead demands taxes and countless paperwork, it can lead to mistrust not only in the state but in democracy.

If one has not studied law, it becomes incredibly hard to understand and submit everything the state asks. This does not work for a modern democracy. This needs to change. In New Zealand for example, the state administration is obliged by law to use simple language. The state needs to realise it is doing itself harm as well as the citizens if it does not make bureaucracy accessible.

Now with the technological world we live in, it is becoming increasingly harder, not easier (as intented), for most people to keep up with bureaucracy. Digital standards and user-friendlines are key.

The real question in any citizens council is: What's the intention? A lot of decisions made are to prove that they are in fact doing something, instead of actually engaging the citizen deeper in the decisions.

People are chosen to represent certain demographics, so as to cover the entire range of diversity in a country and hence their different needs. You cannot have a chosen 47 year old man in Germany, and have him represent all 47 year old men in Germany in that specific region. Democracy doesn't work on statistics.

often, people feel 'empowered' because they are able to contribute to a decision, but suggestions are not really taken into account. The power still remains with the government, not the citizens. It is an illusion of democracy, instead of actually working for democracy.

One could argue that then the ratio of politicians:citizens is too large. We need a space and dynamic where real closeness and genuine expression and appreciation of voice is present. With a ratio of i.e. 1:3000, real discussion is impossible. However, this means longer decision-making and more bureaucracy...

Media and independent journalism can be a very powerful tool. People need to have a place to talk to eachother in a safe environment. Cafes, supermarkets etc. It should be normalised to discuss politics, and anything for that matter, without immediate defensiveness, polarisation or being assigned and labeled a side. The "us vs them" dynamic needs to be rethought.

Democracy is one of the most important elements of any society, especially ours today. Voting, engaging in discussions, speaking up for our needs, wants and beliefs, educating yourself and doing everything with a pure intention towards a better humanity, without hate or powerlust. These are just some of the things we can do as individuals and together to strengthen and develop democracy, and save it from the many threats it is facing today.

Stay optimistic, stay yourself, and stay curious.