"Massive loss of substance" under Merkel - "There is the realization: In this rut ​​it cannot go on"

Created: 01/06/2022, 09:13 AM

From: Florian Naumann

Julian Nida-Rümelin calls for a “renewal of democracy” in a study for the Körber Foundation.

© Christoph Hardt / www.imago-images.de

Ethics Council Vice Julian Nida-Rümelin hopes for a renewal of democracy - and explains in an IPPEN interview why he was “uncomfortable” when he was “canceled” from Trump's Twitter channel.

Munich - Between the dispute over pandemic measures and worrying reports of violence and threats, a big question sometimes falls out of focus: How is democracy in Germany as a whole? The philosopher and deputy ethics council chairman Julian Nida-Rümelin recently presented a study on this question. The answer in his paper for the Körber Foundation: A clear “good” with a considerable “but”. After the pandemic and 16 years as Chancellor Angela Merkel, Nida-Rümelin calls for a renewal of democracy.

In an interview with

and

, the ethicist and decision theorist presented his suggestions for a multitude of questions that are also controversial in everyday life: How should politics speak to Corona doubters, should Internet companies really decide who - so Nida -Rümelin himself - is "canceled"?

A concern that the former professor at the Munich Geschwister-Scholl-Institut, despite all the criticism, harbors even with a view to Donald Trump.

One thing is clear: Nida-Rümelin is demanding more “program” from politics.

And he has high hopes for the generation of the Fridays For Future - especially in “a phase with very big challenges”, in which a democracy that surrenders to the big questions could be in danger of eroding, as the Ethics Council vice-president warns.

Merkur.de: Mr. Nida-Rümelin, in your current study you are calling for a renewal of democracy, but at the same time you don't even see German democracy in a crisis. In view of the latest events, from a torchlight procession in front of a minister's house to specific threats - do you have to readjust your judgment?

Julian Nida-Rümelin:

Correct: The protest is now coming to a head.

But you have to put that into perspective.

Compared to the situation in the USA *, Great Britain or France, democracy in Germany is doing well.

We have seen a truly exemplary, internationally admired change of government.

In addition, an election result that has weakened the extremes.

The AfD is losing in the crisis, although it acts as the voice of the opponents of the Corona measures - who would have thought that a while ago!

The institutions are also intact, the rule of law is intact.

So no need to worry?

Development should not be taken lightly. I said from the start that we should try to keep those who are dissatisfied with us. Even those who are more economically and culturally vulnerable in the crisis. It's not all perfect. But there is no deep gap between rulers and citizens, as the survey shows.

Why is there still a need for action? And where?

Democracy is based on a remarkable assumption.

It reads: The people, not the politicians or lawyers, are able to form an opinion on basic questions of the political order.

The people are asked every four years: "Do you want this or that kind of politics?"

The assumption is that one can trustingly let all power emanate from the people.

In my opinion, however, it is very important to seek approval from politicians.

That is not banal, after all, rulers could also say, "It is enough for me if 51 percent are behind me in the election".

Corona error in Germany?

"It didn't always run smoothly in this crisis"

That hasn't worked so well recently, in Germany?

You complain about one-sidedness in the debates about pandemic measures.

It is about including everyone with us, creating a space of reasons in which we weigh up what is right and what is wrong;

what speaks for it and what speaks against it.

By this inclusiveness, I don't just mean that you listen, but that you don't defame or devalue other opinions.

And that did not always happen in this corona crisis, not even in Germany.

If people think the danger of Covid-19 is overestimated, then that's no reason to call them idiots. 

Julian Nida-Rümelin

Can you give us a specific example?

If people are of the opinion that the danger of Covid-19 * is overestimated, then there is no reason to call them idiots.

Then you have to look at statistics and discuss them.

From my point of view, one of the most striking findings of the survey is that 62 percent of those questioned tend to perceive politics as “looking down on the population from a world of their own”. That sounds quite alarming, I think.

There is this narrative - even if I don't like that expression; but let's just use it - that there is an out-of-the-way caste that lives in its own world and is no longer in contact with people. Some charismatic politicians use this notion. For example Donald Trump and Silvio Berlusconi: both billionaires themselves who live in a bubble, but claim to be authentic “leaders of the people”. It is imperative to take a stand against this narrative - it is not only extremely dangerous, but also wrong. After all, democracy has several levels. And at the municipal level, for example, the exchange with the population is very close, because politicians have to justify every measure, in the district committees of the city districts or in consultation procedures.In Bavaria and other federal states, direct democratic procedures are even possible if the government policy runs counter to a majority.

Julian Nida-Rümelin in an interview: "The story of the detached caste is wrong, but ..."

But that is obviously not enough to convince everyone of the closeness of politics.

The narrative of the upper caste is de facto wrong - but I do believe that strengthening democracy requires that we promote the elements of exchange.

The exchange with those who are affected by measures and those who have expertise that is not necessarily available in the office.

With digital technologies, we have the opportunity to incorporate this civic expertise into opinion-forming.

This has so far been used very inadequately.

The majority do not decide how I live what I do.

Nor does it decide the fate of minorities.

The majority must be contained. 

Julian Nida-Rümelin on the limits of direct democracy.

But it is also important that digitization is no reason to replace representative, constitutional democracy - with the guarantee of individual rights, with the separation of powers - with a model of digital, direct democracy.

The majority do not decide how I live what I do.

Nor does it decide the fate of minorities.

The majority must be contained.

But it must be possible for us to incorporate the expertise, knowledge and lifestyles of the citizens into political decision-making.

That is one of the messages of my study.

But can politics even reach the discontented, the averse, the exhausted in these ways? You may need lower-threshold offers.

The development is strangely ambivalent: the younger generation is being re-politicized. As a university professor, I always get a cross-section of the year with the new students. There were years of age who were very - I say this without devaluation - oriented towards careers, towards advancement; they were hyper-pragmatic, but showed little political interest, were little oriented towards the common good, and were not very willing to get involved. That has changed completely. There is a young generation that is oriented towards the common good, who sometimes believe in science in an almost naive way, and which of course sometimes overshoots the mark. This is also an interesting change, by the way: In the past you were left-wing and critical of science, now you are left-wing and believe in science ...

"If democracy gives the impression that it surrenders to big questions, then this form of society is eroding"

... Here I would hook: So can the “Generation Fridays For Future” change politics from your point of view?

In any case, all of this is a great opportunity.

Think of 1969. At that time, Willy Brandt reacted to the restless youth - I experienced that myself as a very young man - with his demand to “dare more democracy”.

For some it became tangible: The state, that's not the big opponent at all, there may be opportunities for change

this system. That was a major change in the overall situation. We are also now in a phase with very great challenges. In the form of climate change, species loss, but also inequality, the emergence of internet corporations that have as much stock value as the gross national product of entire countries; Google or Apple. This is such a massive global challenge that democracy also has to respond to it: with long-term concepts and the inclusion of all those who are worried. If democracy gives the impression that it is capitulating to the really big questions, from climate change to migration to inequality, then this form of society and government is eroding.

In your study you demand “truthfulness” from politicians on the one hand, and if necessary also an admission of failure. On the other hand, it is also more “program”. Confessions were heard again and again during the Corona crisis. But there is still a long way to go before there is a programmatically sound policy, isn't it?

We have seen a massive loss of programmatic substance in the past few decades, you have to put it that way. Some might say: "Thank God, these lofty plans have rarely been realized". But this condition also carries great risk. Angela Merkel in her office as Federal Chancellor was the extreme example of this pragmatic muddling through: Do not drive conflicts to extremes, ideally govern in a grand coalition based on moods

, skillfully anticipate what could threaten - but do not pursue long-term projects.

And that had its charm, after all, the population reacted positively for years.

But at the same time we have just experienced a massive loss of substance from which the Union is now suffering massively.

That is not good for politics in general either.

We have seen a massive loss of programmatic substance over the past few decades.

Angela Merkel was in her office as Federal Chancellor the extreme example of this pragmatic muddling through.

Julian Nida-Rümelin

How can this “not doing well” be determined?

If you look to France, there are presidential elections - and suddenly the issue of migration is pushing all other issues to the wall.

Among other things, because we have not developed a programmatically well-founded European response to the migration issue.

Without being allowed to slide into the utopian or visionary: I am of the opinion that politics needs long-term goals.

Objectives that are well-considered and that are also put up for public discussion.

One cannot always act only reactively.

Facebook and Co .: It's about the decision "who will be canceled and who will not"

If you read your study, then the topic of the Internet also seems to be very important for the future of democracy.

Not only when it comes to exchanging ideas with politicians.

Why?

I get extremely uncomfortable when, in view of the sometimes bad developments in so-called social media, all hope is placed in the wisdom and ethos of company management, for example on Facebook or Telegram.

Where something is criminally relevant, you have to be able to intervene, of course.

But in general we cannot leave large private corporations to structure communication.

To decide: who will be "canceled" and who will not.

I was very uncomfortable with the decision to cancel Donald Trump's Twitter and Facebook channels immediately after the election.

(...) Do we imagine that in the future large corporations will decide who else will have their say?

It's a creepy idea.

Julian Nida-Rümelin

I was even uncomfortable with the decision to cancel the recently voted out, erratic and really endangering US democracy Donald Trump on his Twitter and Facebook channels immediately after the election.

Of course, that applies to someone who wishes they no longer had this loudspeaker option on social media.

But on the other hand: according to what criteria?

Do we imagine that in the future large corporations will decide who else will have their say?

It's a creepy idea.

In this context, you are calling for a “digital infrastructure for Internet communication under public responsibility”.

How would you describe that?

Some kind of state Facebook?

Or even a nationalized Facebook, as the satirist Jan Böhmermann recently called for *?

I am explicitly not interested in an offer under public law - but rather the question of how Europe should create an infrastructure for digital communication.

For example, a foundation could be set up to offer an alternative to the commercialization of the Internet.

To some observers, this might sound like a "creepy performance" too.

This public infrastructure must of course allow a broad spectrum of diversity of opinion! A lot of positive things also happen in Facebook groups, for example, and discussions are sometimes held at a high level. At the same time, Facebook tries to keep users on the platform for as long as possible, using algorithms that control newsfeeds in such a way that user preferences are reinforced. This is completely normal economic logic, there is nothing wrong with that at first - apart from questions of data protection. The big but: if that goes into the political sphere, then these algorithms create a reinforcement, a separation from what the user did not previously have as a preference. This leads to radicalization and parcelling. And with people who only marginally perceive other media,possibly to hide part of reality.

Traffic light and boy as hope: "There is a realization that there is no way we can go on in this rut"

Let's get very specific again and look to the future.

In an optimistic scenario: How could Germany have come out of the turmoil of the pandemic in some time?

During this crisis we also learned how important solidarity is. And we recognized problems that weren't even on the screen before. Think of the corona outbreaks at Tönnies. Then the population first became aware of the conditions in this industry. Think of the many single parents who were left alone during the crisis, of the self-employed or now the situation of carers. Or the education system, which found it so difficult to respond appropriately to the crisis. That shows that we are behind the moon when it comes to digital education. All of this could act like a wake-up call. I hope that this does not peter out in the crisis management little one, but there was a signal from the new traffic light coalition *, which is already bold because it connects political programs with one another,which were considered incompatible. If that should work - and Germany, as an economically and socially very strong country, is just as well positioned as Europe - then these crisis experiences could turn into a new form of orientation towards the common good.

“Orientation towards the common good” is a large and somewhat general word. What does that mean for you?

Orientation towards the common good means: We address common interests, not particular interests. Politics is not a negotiation game, but requires justification. It is important to address the public and say: "These are our concepts with which we want to react to certain challenges - and we want everyone to be able to contribute their skills to this dialogue". That could happen now. Earlier I made the comparison with 1969. The youth movement was a shock to many in society at the time. Because suddenly everything that was familiar was being questioned. But that has led to a great departure. To an educational expansion such as Germany had never experienced. Now the situation is very different, but there is a parallel in one respect: there is a restless, politicized,also impatient younger generation. And there is the realization that there is no way things can just go on in this rut.

Interview: Florian Naumann / * Merkur.de and fr.de are offers from IPPEN.MEDIA.

Read more:

Julian Nida-Rümelin on Corona policy in Germany - "Triage situations in children's clinics - but not because of Covid"