Philosopher Sommer sees “the tendency towards angry middle-classism in the lack of participation”

Created: 08/12/2022, 08:23

By: Jana Stäbener

Prof. Dr.

In the IPPEN.MEDIA interview, Andreas Urs Sommer talks about how democracy could work differently.

Sommer teaches the history of philosophy at the University of Freiburg.

His book on “The Democracy of the 21st Century” will be published on August 15th.

© Flierl

Germany is heading for a "winter of rage".

In an interview, philosopher Andreas Urs Sommer explains why the "lack of participation" in our representative democracy is the reason for this.

Freiburg – If you ask Andreas Urs Sommer what is actually going wrong in Germany, which according to the Office for the Protection of the Constitution is heading for a “winter of rage”, there is only one answer for the philosopher: We don’t participate enough.

Our system of representative democracy is outdated and no longer appropriate because today we are more individualized than ever before, he says.

Sommer is a professor of philosophy and the history of philosophy at the University of Friborg and was born in Switzerland.

For him, republicanism and representative democracy are “only a sacred mantra of the political-philosophical.

Self-adulation” – this is how he writes it in his new book “A Democracy for the 21st Century”, which will be published on August 15th.

In an interview with

talks about why direct participatory democracy could reconcile Germany again.

Through direct decisions, it is breaking up the groups that are facing each other with hardened fronts in the corona pandemic, gas crisis or the gender debate.

The 50-year-old thinks it's time for all members of our democracy to take responsibility again - he has complete trust in common human reason.

Mr. Sommer, on August 15th your new book “A Democracy for the 21st Century” will be published, in which you sing the praises of direct participatory democracy.

How long have you been dealing with this?

I'm Swiss, so since childhood.

I practically sucked up direct democracy with my mother's milk.

That's why I was so surprised when I experienced my first community meeting here in Germany about 15 years ago.

I went there in the expectation that citizens would be able to vote on the factual proposals and was then amazed and sobered that it was not the municipality that decided politics, but the municipal council. 

When you decided to write a book about democracy in the 21st century, which crises were already a topic?

When in 2019 the specific desire crystallized in me to get a feel for democracy in Germany, the main topic was the sustainable design of our society - Fridays For Future was particularly visible at that time.

The corona pandemic was then on the rise when I started writing the book.

In her book, talking about crises doesn't exactly come across well.

Why actually?

The constant talking about crises seems to cut off options for action.

When the media report on crises, it often comes across as if the crisis is pushing us in one direction and restricting us – even threatening us.

At the same time, crises should be seen intensively as opening up opportunities.

Crisis means we have to do something new.

The Ukraine war is also an opportunity for our understanding of democracy, regardless of the fact that Ukraine must of course stand up to its aggressor, Russia.

They are of the opinion that our current form of representative democracy no longer does justice to the emancipation of people, their "self-maturity".

Is direct democracy the chance to straighten this out again?

Since the 18th century we have developed an image of man that we call enlightened.

People are autonomous, mature and take their lives into their own hands.

My thesis is that today's representative constitution of the political space is not appropriate and chronically impedes this maturity.

It is hardly possible to make political decisions yourself.

This does not correspond to the ideal that we actually want to live by.

If we are serious about coming of age, then we must all accept responsibility.

Of course there are also many who say "People need paternalism".

But then we can no longer talk about democracy, but about autocracy.

also read

Putin's losses in the Ukraine war: Pentagon provides new figures - "quite remarkable"

CSU foreign politician makes gloomy prognosis about the future with Russia: "We are Putin's war goal"

Andreas Urs Sommer is Professor of Philosophy and the History of Philosophy in Freiburg.

He has always been fascinated by the concept of direct democracy - so much so that he has now published a book on it.

© A. Dietrich

In addition to the history of philosophy, Andreas Urs Sommer also deals with ethics and cultural philosophy.

He has also given us an ethical assessment of the question of how Ukraine should respond to the ethical dilemma of “give up or keep fighting”.

No "Winter of Anger"?

If everyone had a voice, "the risk of radicalization and hypertrophication is much lower"

So everyone should have a say and take responsibility.

To be honest, when I see pictures of lateral thinkers or right-wing extremists who equate vaccinations with political oppression or agitate against refugees, I don't really want to leave political decisions to these people.

She? 

That's the point.

If we all had a voice and knew that it counts as much as everyone else, then the risk of radicalization and hypertrophication is much lower.

Because if you are against the corona measures or vaccinations, for example, and have the opportunity to bring about a referendum, you can do that and everyone who is entitled to vote can then decide on it.

Direct participatory democracy allows everyone to have their say - and within a regulated process.

This means?

This means that one would not have to resort to violence, but could contribute one's own within the given order.

And that is of course the fundamental problem: we have to live with those who have different opinions and perspectives.

With those who obviously see things very differently that we take for granted.

This life with dissonance is, so to speak, a basic democratic experience, a very salutary one, by the way, which helps to relativize one's own point of view.

The Office for the Protection of the Constitution warns of a "winter of anger" in which right-wing extremists use the gas shortage to turn people against the government.

Can direct democracy help here?

I would say it would definitely help if painful choices are understood as shared choices.

Let's say we have a referendum on whether to completely shut down gas supply via Nord Stream 1 and 55 percent are in favour, 45 percent are against.

Of course, the minority will not like that, but they see that the decision is made by the majority.

Of course you can then go and start a new initiative to change the mind of the 55 percent, but you can't say: Those are the ones up there who are sitting in the warmth anyway and are ordering us to cut costs.

And that's not how the anger comes about.

Exactly – or at least it is less.

I have the impression that in the current representative democracy, in which votes according to Article 20 (2) of the Basic Law would not be a constitutional problem, there is often an attempt to placate people.

With the tank discount, the 9-euro ticket or the energy cost subsidy.

You try to buy yourself a good mood.

But I don't think people want to be bought.

I think they want to have a say.

If you can't have a say, then you look for all sorts of outlets.

And that leads to anger building up and looking for a way to vent it - a fear that cannot be dismissed out of hand.

About IPPEN.MEDIA:

The IPPEN.MEDIA network is one of the largest online publishers in Germany.

At the locations in Berlin, Hamburg/Bremen, Munich, Frankfurt, Cologne, Stuttgart and Vienna, journalists from our central editorial office research and publish for more than 50 news offers.

These include brands such as Merkur.de, FR.de and BuzzFeed Germany.

Our news, interviews, analyzes and comments reach more than 5 million people in Germany every day.

Direct democracy: “The political is about shaping space together”

How do you explain that in Switzerland, where direct democracy has always existed, the Swiss People's Party (SVP) from the right-wing spectrum is particularly strong?

The SVP is the strongest party in Switzerland - that's true.

But that doesn't mean it has a majority.

It is around 25 percent and is just bobbing along in the concordance government – ​​by the way, it is only comparable to a limited extent with the AfD.

In fact, I think it's a tragedy, if you will, that in Germany, especially on the left and progressive spectrum, no one dares to call for nationwide referendums.

On the contrary - you leave this field to the right, I wrote a whole chapter about it in the book.

At a federal party conference, the Greens dropped the demand for referendums from their list of demands.

I think that's extremely worrying, given the party's grassroots history.

Many are concerned that decisions in direct democracy are made too emotionally and with too little expertise.

In your book you refute this with the keyword “expertocracy”.

What do you mean by that?

Even those who make decisions today are not experts in their field.

They are people who have chosen politics as a profession and come from different sections of the population – and should do so.

They are also advised by experts.

Why shouldn't this also work for the citizens?

I believe it is a fundamental misunderstanding to think that politics can be delegated in terms of the economic division of labour.

The political is about shaping the space in which we live together.

Delegation is only possible on a case-by-case basis.

In a democracy that is representative, you have problems getting through with your own ideas.

That's why you get louder and louder and start screaming the moment you feel like you're not being heard.

Philosophy professor Andreas Urs Sommer

"I see the tendency towards angry middle-classism - also verbally - in the lack of participation"

Your book is also about language and its "brutalization", which is shown by the fact that everyone on the Internet can say anything - without arguments or evidence.

To what extent are the disadvantages of representative democracy evident here?

In a democracy that is representative, you have problems getting through with your own ideas.

That's why you get louder and louder and start screaming the moment you feel like you're not being heard.

In my opinion, the opportunity to be heard is a decisive factor in cooling tempers.

I see the tendency towards angry bourgeoisie – also verbally – in the lack of participation.

And what about the “outrage” you describe in the book?

Outrage is a very common currency in today's political environment.

It is subject to inflation, which means it is only worthwhile if it is fueled more and more and a spiral of indignation is set in motion.

A barrage of indignation then rolls towards the decision-makers.

And then they get irritated and say: "Okay, we're going to do this and that because you're so outraged".

But outrage is a bad political advisor and almost always goes hand in hand with powerlessness.

If you can participate, then instead of being outraged, you can do something.

Outrage can be an initial emotion, but it should always be transformed into something productive. 

What could direct democracy in Germany look like?

As a philosopher, you don't want to get very specific, but I could imagine that the whole thing would first be tried out at the municipal level.

As I said: My original political traumatization in Germany was the community meeting, which was a community council meeting with spectators.

I can imagine that the radius of decision-making authority will then be expanded step by step.

After this has been tested across the board, the inhabitants of Germany are certainly willing to tackle larger irons.

This also makes sense at the supranational level, for example at the EU level.

The moment of practice is of central importance.

At the end of your book, you describe what the world might look like in 2072.

Although we would have missed the 2-degree target for global warming, the earth's temperature has been falling for several years.

How did we do that – with direct participatory democracy?

I think the general awareness of sustainability issues has increased a lot.

That a grassroots movement like Fridays For Future says it is still not enough is obvious and at the same time their social function, namely to drive the discourse and keep it alive.

But it seems to me that in climate policy it is particularly important that everyone goes along by making decisions.

That "those up there" don't decide what everyone else has to do grudgingly and then forms of passive resistance and civil disobedience, possibly against sensible climate protection measures, arise.

I believe that in the long run, participation and taking all of us seriously as decision-makers will make things much better and produce fewer emissions.

Anyone who would like to pre-order the book "A Democracy for the 21st Century" by Andreas Urs Sommer can do so directly from Herder-Verlag.