Is democracy being dismantled in its own name?
by Dr. Tom Reimer//
Democracy, our democracy, is praised, extolled, affirmed, even exalted to the skies. It is talked about everywhere. It must be preserved, protected and defended against its enemies. A law has even been passed to promote it. It is used to justify and justify political action. The state supports demonstrations and generously finances promotion and advertising programs. But does this grand theater really serve democracy? Could and should we not be skeptical when an issue is brought to the fore like this?
Freedom of opinion, diversity of opinion and public discourse are essential prerequisites for a democracy. Everyone is allowed to form their own opinion and express it freely. No one needs to be instructed to do so. After all, democracy is characterized by the fact that everyone is free to decide what they think and how they act.
In this way, each individual can assess the work of a government and then vote it in or out of power. The possibility of being voted out of office is crucial, as it prevents governments that harm the population from remaining in power. If the government can be removed, it has the motivation to make decisions in the interests of the population. If it abuses its power, it will not be re-elected and will lose it.
At present, it seems more theoretically than practically possible to remove the coalition of traffic lights by means of free elections. This is because the loss of their majority in the European elections has had no consequences apart from increasing the defamation of the opposition and the further promotion of democracy. The governing parties claim the concept of democracy for themselves alone. Only they would be democratic.
Control of power
In addition to the ability to vote freely, democracy is limited and contained by other institutions. The judiciary in the form of the Federal Constitutional Court and the Office for the Protection of the Constitution monitor the government and thus safeguard the rule of law. They protect citizens from arbitrary state action.
However, this does not work if the Constitutional Court and the Office for the Protection of the Constitution are under the control of the government and are bound by instructions. After all, these institutions serve precisely as control bodies that ensure that those in power abide by the law. The independence of these bodies is therefore a prerequisite for a functioning democracy.
If there is too much proximity between the supervisory bodies and the government, they lose their protective function. If the Ministry of the Interior appoints a new president of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, this closeness and influence and thus the violation of fundamental principles of democracy is obvious. If the Federal Constitutional Court is filled with politically compliant candidates, it becomes an instrument of politics. Control does not work if you are too close.
In addition to this currently observable proximity, numerous new laws are being created. The Democracy Promotion Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act, electoral law reform and the Digital Service Act are supposedly intended to promote democracy. The same applies to the expansion of the powers and staffing of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. In the name of democracy, the latter is campaigning intensively for new surveillance forces. The contradiction could not be more obvious and a suspicion arises.
Do the numerous newly created laws and stricter laws perhaps not serve democracy at all, but solely to strengthen and protect the power of the government? It is well known that those who delegitimize the state are now dealing with a strong state. Is democracy being so ostensibly and pompously honored in order to distract from the underlying dismantling of its foundations?
Methods of power
Hermann Broch, who had to flee Germany during the Second World War and whose mother disappeared in Theresienstadt, described the methods of totalitarian regimes in his mass delusion theory. These adopt parts of the old system, but fill them with new content. Although the old values are honored, they merely serve as decoration for the new. Ultimately, they are completely replaced by new ideological ideas.
Hannah Arendt recognized that behind every totalitarian power there are new ideas. The leaders and their followers believe they are doing the right thing, that they must reshape society in the name of these new ideas in order to improve it. They declare their actions to be absolutely necessary and impose a situation on the population that they are not responsible for, but generally cannot change either. However, the propagated improvement does not materialize. On the contrary, social conditions worsen with each passing year.
The task of democracy is to recognize and expose this humanly intolerable situation. If the government pursues an anti-constitutional course, civil disobedience is necessary to prevent the suffering that every totalitarian power causes.
Are we in such a situation? Are freedom of opinion and diversity of opinion being suppressed and replaced by a unified opinion? Is democracy being subordinated to new ideas and goals? To the goal of victory over Russia, the idea of saving us from a climate catastrophe and victory over everything that the government summarizes under the term "right-wing"? Does democracy today mean having to fight against these enemies?
But democracy is directed precisely against ideas of victory, it does not create images of the enemy, is committed to human dignity and human rights and has genuine peace goals. Is the symbolic power of the concept of democracy merely being used to increase power and generate economic profits? Is democracy being dismantled in its own name? Is it being honored and devalued at the same time?
If this is the case, then we are in great danger of losing justice and freedom. Then it is high time to say no, not to go along, to openly disagree. Then it is time for civil disobedience against injustice and for the restoration of an open democratic society, as Hannah Arendt called for. Let us look closely, let us not be deceived. Because if we do not protect our democratic institutions, all freedom and with it lost all security.
Further reading:
Hermann Broch, Collected Works 9, "Mass Psychology"
Karl Popper: "The open society and its enemies"
Hannah Arendt, "Elements and Origins of Totalitarianism"
Mattias Desmet, "The Psychology of Totalitarianism"
About the author: Dr. Tom Reimer is a biologist, neurobiologist, mass psychologist, biological expert, cabaret artist and author. Reimer lives near Rostock.
English 
German 
Spanish
9 Responses
„Demokratie“ ist die größte und lukrativste Erfindung des Kapitals (neben dem Klimawandel)um uns glauben zu machen, wir hätten etwas zu entscheiden.
Wer mehr wissen will lese „Taking the risk out of democracy“
Ich stimme allen vorherigen Kommentartoren absolut zu. Und möchte die Schwierigkeit hervorheben, einen zu großen Teil der Bevölkerung, der mit Brot und Spielen bei Laune gehalten, durch den digitalen Lebenswandel immer bequemer wird und zunehmends (durch diverse Entwicklungen) dem Konsum als (alleinigen) Lebenssinn huldigt, zum Widerstand zu motivieren. Das jahrzehntelang bereits laufende Programm internationaler „Machteliten“ (entmenschlichter Machtphantasten) trägt nun seine Früchte. Man hat alles in diese Richtung gesteuert, die Puzzleteile greifen ineinander. Wie der Chefberater Harari bereits öffentlich äußerte, dass es durch Digitalisierung nutzlose Menschen geben wird, deren Sinn dann durch Computerspiele/-simulationen gefüllt werden wird… Diese Gesellschaft um uns herum ist leider schon erschreckend nah daran, man belustigt sich mit Instagram, Netflix und co, kaum ein Haushalt ohne Videospielkonsole, an dem selbst Grundschulkinder zum Verweilen geparkt werden.
Ich selbst setze viel daran, dem entgegenzusteuern und habe die Hoffnung auf das „Gesetz der 3,5 Prozent“ von Erica Chenoweth. Die 3,5 % Aufgeklärten und zu Widerstand fähigen, ergibt rund 2,8 Mio in der Bevölkerung Deutschlands, sind m.E. vorhanden und sollten es schaffen! Die Heraussforderung wird sein, sich in Ausdauer zu üben, zu den richtigen Zeitpunkten zusammen zu kommen und nicht von der Vielzahl an Schauplätzen und Widrigkeiten zermürben zu lassen. Einen sehr wichtigen Beitrag leistet auch Markus Langemann mit dem Club der klaren Worte! Meinen herzlichen Dank auch dafür!
Wonderful article and great comments! Whenever I read something like this, I always hope that I can disappoint people around me by sending it to them. I will try that again. Thank you so much!
I could imagine that there is a motive for Faeser's (and other partly completely uneducated political figures) appalling anti-German and undemocratic acts, bans and laws.
Let's take a look at January 13, 2011, for example:
Mrs. Merkel received the Calergi Medal 2010 on this day (Source: Bundestag.de)
Perhaps there is something to the Calergi plan after all. At least several Faeser measures can be explained by it.
Correct analysis, as in so much social media. But Hannah Ahrend also said: Totalitarian regimes (or those on the way to becoming one) bring fear to their side. Because without fear, there is no following. We are on this path now that the parties have made the state their subject (von Weizäcker) and are trying to save their power (and their shirts) with grand coalitions against the will of the people. The last resorts of fear are pandemics, doomsday fantasies such as climate change and wars. This will continue until the bitter end. Whatever that looks like.
Fear, or rather overcoming fear, is the starting point for improvement in every relationship. As small fish, we need the shoal, the community, mutual help in the family, neighborhood, village community and at work. In a broader sense, we need to rebuild our traditional culture - and turn away from the purely material towards the spiritual. The fear-mongers know this very well and it is precisely these values that their attacks are aimed at.
Definitely and the question mark is superfluous.
The headline can justifiably read as follows:
DEMOCRACY IS BEING DISMANTLED UNDER ITS OWN NAME !
All the facts in favor of this have already been established and are listed in this article.
I have great confidence in our Basic Law; if I understand correctly, after reunification we will be called upon to adopt a constitution on a grassroots democratic basis, which would probably also remove the basis for this Reichsbürger Gehühner's arguments, if I understand correctly. I also believe that our new constitution will be very close to the current Basic Law. I have every confidence that our constitutional state will eventually function again. Spahn already has an inkling of this when he talks about a lateral thinkers' court. The lateral thinkers were right on most points and Spahn is afraid of them, why? Because he has made a serious effort to be scientific and limit the damage? Anyone who comes into question as the perpetrator of millions of years of child abuse is on very thin ice in the long term. All corona facts are recorded, archived and published by ZAAVV, initiated by Klaus Ludwig and others. All perpetrators and accomplices are no longer safe from prosecution. By this I mean fair trials and the rule of law. It may well be that Helge Braun is innocent, but that should be examined by the courts. In view of the hundreds of thousands of deaths in the EU alone, this is all too understandable.
What an excellent statement about what we are about to lose. The tragedy is that large sections of the population don't even realize that social conditions are deteriorating with each passing year. Or don't want to notice. We have been in grave danger for three years now, with new subjects being thrown on the table individually or together as required. Stoking fear in the population is an important aspect of this. I'm not sure whether the courage for civil disobedience is still there. As soon as a new pandemic comes around the corner, disobedience will be in short supply. I sincerely hope that we remember our strengths again.