democratic dilemma

Post photo: Election documents | © Pixabay

Just a few years ago it was no problem at all for a democrat to live up to his passive right to vote, because in the Bonn Republic appropriate parties had been established that could make an appropriate offer for almost every democratic conviction.

The followers of a Christian but non-denominational conservatism found in the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) their representative. That the CDU allowed it and a splinter group, namely the Christian Social Union in Bavaria (Christian Social Union), released space, was only initially crowned with success, and to this day has not only become a burden, but also a real threat to the CDU.

In recent decades, the CSU has strayed so far from its original principles that it has become a gathering place for right-wing nationalist circles, which are now also beginning to spread into the CDU as a “union of values”.

The Free Democratic Party (FDP) as a political home.

The third political force came the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) returned and, having renounced socialism, found a strong and committed following throughout the population.

Unfortunately, it was not possible for all three democratic parties from the start to keep themselves free from former National Socialists, because in their efforts to become a “people's party” as far as possible, all three also opened up very widely to the political fringes.

These three parties made this mistake again after 1989, easily accepting former Stalinists, communists and genuine socialists into their ranks.

In doing so, everyone succumbed to the mistaken belief that they could “suck” totalitarians into democrats within their own party structure. However, the parties only succeeded, and more or less well, in minimizing the appearance of radical parties by repeatedly serving their own “fringes” accordingly.

The CDU was very happy to assign this task to the CSU, which also very quickly felt comfortable in this role.

The really interesting thing, however, was that in the Bonn Republic it was not liberalism and conservatism that crystallized as opposite poles, but rather that social democracy became the opposite pole of conservatism, which was probably more due to the citizens' striving for harmony after living through a "thousand-year" dictatorship. The problem with this is that both parties were too similar in their political ideologies from the start and they could only achieve distinctions that the voters could represent through their respective fringes.

The first to fall victim to this problem were the liberals, who never really succeeded in re-establishing liberalism in Germany. Probably the last liberal thinker Ralph Dahrendorf, addressed this very early on in his conflict theory, in which he promoted conflict in democratic disputes in order to ultimately be able to keep democracy alive as a whole. Probably due to a lack of qualified personnel, although this situation has continued to deteriorate to this day, by the end of the Bonn Republic the parties were no longer able to transport their own ideas and content and to contrast them with those of the other parties to deliver.

The Bonn Republic had thus changed into a feel-good democracy that spared the citizens in general and the party members in particular any conflictual disputes or even drastic and momentous decisions, whereby this supposedly successful model was also continued in the Berlin Republic.

This ultimately and quite logically led to more and more Politicianswho shine with their hair rather than their brains.

This also led to the fact that the voters distanced themselves more and more from their right to vote and even today it is difficult to lure them to the polls.

However, this also led to a “affected party”, which does not know its own content and only uses the ideas and content of the three aforementioned parties, depending on the mood of the population, succeeded in joining the Berlin Republic now to establish the voters as the fourth force.

What is interesting is that this "party" deliberately made use of the democratic fringes just to become the "people's party" itself as quickly as possible.

All of this leads to the fact that one can recognize two serious problems in our democracy:

First, the parties have not "rounded" their fringes but their base and electorate.

Secondly, it is now the case that political conflicts are not being carried out productively within democratic parties, but that the political fringes and their new representatives are questioning our feel-good democracy as a whole.

The democratic dilemma here is that the citizens and voters now have to settle this conflict themselves with the representatives of totalitarian ideas.

Of course, this would be the primary task of parties and their representatives, but who should do this?

Please name five politicians who live social democracy and can also make us citizens understand them.

Please name five politicians who live Christian conservatism and can also make it understandable to us citizens.

Please name five politicians who live liberalism and can make it understandable to us citizens.

I claim that if we get at least these 15 politicians together, the start would already be made to establish a defensive democracy in our country that marginalizes the respective political fringes again and also faces all social and non-man-made challenges.

There really is a lot to do; do we tackle it too?!


"Do you have the slightest idea what moral and ethical dilemma is?"

Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance in The Shining (1980)