Domowina is publicly presented as the central advocacy of the Sorbs and receives remarkable and almost exclusively positive attention on public broadcasting. However, this broad and benevolent reporting leaves critical aspects of the club structure and the influence in secret. The dark side of Domowina is particularly evident in the species andway in which she interferes in the internal affairs of the Lusatian Sorbs, ignoring or even suppressing the diversity of Sorbian voices.
Influence in politics and media
The influence of Domowina extends far into political and state institutions. Representatives of the association are present in numerous committees, take part in decision-making processes and influence the design of Sorbian affairs at state and federal level. However, the legitimacy of this influence is highly controversial, because the Domowina is ultimately only a registeredAssociation that has no democratic election or mandate by the Sorbian population. Nevertheless, she publicly claims the role of the Sorbs’ sole voice and is treated in this way by the media and politics. This contradicts the basic understanding of democratic legitimacy and calls into question the principles of political representation.
Questionable role and lack of legitimacy
Domowina is aspiring to be the only legitimate representation of the Sorbs. However, this sole representative claim openly contradicts the principles of the Basic Law and the principle of democracy, which is based on election and pluralistic opinion-forming. The association is not legitimized by free and secret elections, but rather collects theentire Sorbian community. In reality, only a small part of the Sorbs is a member of Dommovina. This systematically hides or marginalizes many voices that have different ideas about Sorbian identity, culture or politics. The diversity of opinions within the Sorbian community is not only not represented, but actively suppressed.
Controversial past and lack of reappraisal
Another serious problem lies in the history of Domovina during the GDR era. The close interdependence with state institutions and the cooperation with the Stasi have left many Sorbs a lasting distrust. To date, the processing of this time is incomplete, and criticism of former officials is often ironed out or trivialized. theThe club has failed to openly deal with its past and draw the necessary consequences. This lack of transparency burdens the relationship to parts of the Sorbian population and raises the question of the extent to which today’s Domowina is actually acting in the interest of the community or rather securing its own structures and positions of power.
Marginalization of different opinions
The way Domovina deals with other Sorbian perspectives is particularly problematic. Those who do not join the official line are often not heard or even put in a bad light. Alternative initiatives, critical voices and new approaches to preserving and promoting Sorbian culture are hardly heard. the media coverage of theDomowina reinforces this trend by emphasizing almost exclusively positive aspects and largely excluding critical questions. This creates a distorted image that has little to do with the actual diversity of Sorbian realities of life. Resistance to democratic developments The association even goes so far as to democratic developments within the Sorbian community in a targeted mannerhinder. The Sorbian parliament, which as a pluralistic body could provide more co-determination, is openly fought by the Domowina. Initiatives that call for more transparency, participation and democratic control are met with massive resistance. Critical media dealing with the structures and practices of Domowina are marginalized or gained little access toinformation. An open, democratic debate about the future of Sorbian self-government is thus systematically made more difficult.
A club in the twilight
The dominance of Domowina in public, its far-reaching influence on political processes and the lack of democratic legitimacy cast a critical light on the role of the association in the Lausitzer Sorbent Society. The lack of processing of one’s own past, the marginalization of different opinions and resistance to democratic structuresof a problematic self-image. A real renewal of Sorbian self-government and an open, pluralistic debate about the future of the community are systematically prevented by these structures. Anyone who wants a lively, democratic and diverse Sorbian society cannot see the dark side of Domowina.
Screenshot youtube.com
