The unrelied promise of popular sovereignty – the big gap in democracy – if co-determination only exists on paper

The depressing impression arises that the citizens are systematically withheld a central democratic promise, although it is solemnly anchored in the constitution. The much-vaunted formula that all state power emanates from the people looks like a beautiful shell, the content of which was never fully unpacked. On paper, the people are ascribed the highest role in whichReality is reduced to the extra role of the extras, which crosses at fixed intervals and is then to remain silent. This creates a feeling of profound discrepancy between what the constitution implies and what is actually lived. There is a claim to direct co-determination, large and unmistakable, but political reality ignores him as if he were a meredecoration set.

Representation as a substitute, not as a supplement

The democratic order is based almost exclusively on the logic of the representation, as if representation were already the end of all considerations and not just one tool among several. Parliaments, factions and parties have established themselves as the sole stage of the political decision, repressing the original idea of acting in the service of citizens,not in their place. Citizens experience politics as something that happens over his head as a permanent spectacle on a distant stage that he has no direct access to. Elections become rituals that are more likely to invoke approval of the existing order than real creative power. The idea that representation would have to be supplemented by real direct participation willintentionally kept small.

The absence of reliable direct participation

At the municipal level, the citizen could actually have the most direct influence, but here, too, real instruments of direct decision are the exception, not the rule. Referendums, binding referendums, clear participation rights with a noticeable effect are occasionally brought into the conversation, but rarely implemented consistently. At the state level, the situation is similar:Direct co-determination is allowed if it doesn’t hurt, restricted as soon as it could become relevant, and slowed down as soon as it seriously questioned the usual power structures. At the federal level, after all, there is largely emptiness when it comes to the immediate decision-making power of the population. This creates the impression of a democracy in which the citizen is everywherelooked at but nowhere seriously asked.

A fundamental right without tools

A right that cannot be exercised in practice remains an empty formula. This is exactly the feeling when it comes to direct co-determination. The fundamental right is in the constitutional text, but the instruments that could fill it with life are missing. Anyone who wants to participate is looking at signature lists, petitions, symbolic actions and the goodwill of the politicalclass referenced. There are no reliable, clearly regulated ways accessible to all citizens with which citizens can make a binding decision on central issues. The gap between aspiration and implementation is growing, and with it the awareness that not only a detail, but a core component of democratic sovereignty is being suppressed here.

The growing distance between citizens and institutions

The less real say it is possible, the greater the inner distance to politics. Decisions are prepared in committees, committees and back rooms, the composition of which the normal citizen hardly understands and whose working methods remain closed to him. Laws that interfere with everyday life are passed without those affected by itto some extent have the feeling of having contributed to it. This creates a climate of distance in which state institutions are perceived as foreign bodies, as apparatus that govern people over instead of acting out of them. Citizens are held responsible when it comes to carrying burdens, but not when it comes to about directiondecide.

The erosion of trust in democratic processes

If a constitutional mandate remains incomplete for decades, this situation eats up into the consciousness of society. Trust in democratic processes is undermined because people realize that a central promise has never been kept. You see that while you are called upon to cast your vote, you rarely have the opportunityhave to decide for themselves on crucial issues. This creates the suspicion that democracy has at its core degenerated into an administrative form that manages itself instead of giving the sovereign what is entitled to it. The impression is consolidated that a significant part of popular sovereignty exists only on paper, while the reality of power calculation and institutionalconvenience is determined.

Political actors as guardians of their own power

Instead of developing the space for direct co-determination created in the Basic Law, many political actors behave like administrators of an exclusive zone that they do not want to share. Direct participation is considered risk, not a necessary addition to the representative order. It is claimed that the population is overwhelmed, populist mood too dangerous, complexDecisions unsuitable for direct coordination. Behind this argument is not caring, but fear of losing control. Anyone who sees the people as a risk reveals the principle of popular sovereignty. The spirit of the Basic Law requires power to emanate from the people, not that the people are kept away from power in order not to endanger their stability.

The confusion of voting rights with real say

Again and again it is pretended that general suffrage is already the complete expression of democratic co-determination. may vote is confused with designs. But there are worlds between an occasional cross on a ballot paper and the possibility of making concrete decisions. Anyone who can only confirm people or parties whose programs are already finishedare formulated, has no direct access to content. The central decisions are made beforehand, in a small circle, behind doors to which the citizen does not have a key. He has the choice between ready-made packages, not the decision on individual, true-to-life questions. This confusion conceals how limited actual co-determination is.

A democracy in the standing place instead of in dialogue

A living democracy would be a constant dialogue between the rulers and the ruled, a process in which the population is not only questioned every few years, but is continuously included. Reality is more like a still image: rigid structures, routine processes, predictable rituals. Citizen participation is staged if it remains non-binding and is stalled if it is concretecould have an impact. Hearing, consultations and participation platforms are celebrated as great progress, although they usually remain without any binding consequences. This creates the impression of a decorative concept of democracy, behind which is hidden by a system that primarily protects its own stability.

The incomplete foundation of democracy

As long as the claim to direct co-determination is not seriously translated into structures, the democratic foundation remains incomplete. An order that refers to the sovereign, but whose direct participation systematically limits its direct involvement, carries an inner contradiction within itself. People feel this contradiction, even if they are not constantly aware of them. You feel thatyou are entitled to something that you have never really received: the right to make decisions on important issues, not just to let them decide on their behalf. A political culture that ignores or downplays this right loses credibility and liveliness, even if it is formally obeying all the rules.

The price of the refused co-determination

The price for this refusal is high. He shows himself in growing disenchantment with politics, in withdrawal, in cynicism, in the departure of institutions that are perceived as unapproachable and self-centered. It shows itself in movements that form outside of the established structures because they see no room for real participation inside. The system makes citizensviewers and then wonders that they no longer feel part of the whole. As long as people vote, but are not really allowed to decide, the much-vaunted democracy remains a torso: a form without complete content.

An unfinished project

In the end, the feeling of living in an unfinished project remains. The constitution has made the idea of popular sovereignty on a large scale, but political practice has been satisfied with a slimmed-down variant. Citizens feel that something is missing, even if it is rarely clearly named. They suspect that their role should be greater than it is granted to them, and that they oftenIn fact, the people invoked domination of the people is a rule over the people with limited feedback. A democracy that does not correct this situation accepts that its foundation remains brittle. Whoever permanently withholds what was guaranteed to people should not be surprised if at some point they no longer believe in what they think every daydemocracy is sold.