Don’t be afraid of the citizen: Plea for more direct democracy. – Politics

It would not be an exaggeration to call this book a sensation. It is only from the subtitle of the slightly whimsical neologism “demophobia” that it can be deduced that this is a contribution to an explosive political debate. Gertrude Lübbe-Wolff, former judge at the Federal Constitutional Court, takes a stand for direct-democratic forms of political participation. Don’t be afraid of the citizens, that’s her credo.

With well-trained legal knowledge and a broad comparative perspective – referendums in Costa Rica not excluded – Lübbe-Wolff treats the “godseibeiuns” of advocates of the institutional Same procedure as every year. The objections are discussed chapter by chapter. The population is too stupid and unwilling, petitions for a referendum, plebiscites or referendums form the breeding ground for demagogy, yes-no decisions are too simple and can only be carried out in communities the size of the Swiss cantons, the legally binding nature of the forms of participation remains unclear, to name just a few reservations to name, who are also familiar from the public dispute about the future of the party state.

Pervaded by the severity of the Karlsruhe justification

The book, “written by a lawyer, but not a legal book”, unmistakably pervaded by the Karlsruhe spirit of strict justification in its lavish annotations, makes the prerequisites and consequences of democratic decision-making the subject. A polemical pamphlet, carefully researched, while at the same time refreshingly combative in gesture and underpinned by an unshakable, enlightened confidence in people’s wisdom. Lübbe-Wolff discusses using historically explosive examples. The procedural logic of the Swiss referendum is discussed, as are the circumstances of the “seizure of power” by the National Socialists. The passages about referendums in the course of European unification, Brexit for example, are instructive.

The argumentation, in its well-foundedness far more than a polemic, proves to be a lesson in democratic theory in the horizon of the consistently excitingly prepared individual cases. Ultimately, it is about the question of how worries and concerns – to be experienced every day in the everyday life of citizens – are to be translated into the political sphere of action: What chances of articulation and implementation do civic concerns have in a historically grown structure of political decision-making, for example in the system of party competition? Progress is a snail, that’s how the forced coalition was and is commented on with a shrug. But what if it burns under your nails – to name just one of many problems with climate change?

Which paths of institutionalization are open to innovators and what dangers of de-institutionalization arise when parliament and government, legitimized by regular elections, open themselves to the will of the people? Or when the people take to the streets, demanding more say, at the “round table” or otherwise involved? In the procedural options that Lübbe-Wolff lists in a clearly laid out appendix, it is easy to find an answer to the book’s question: Political deviance, such as “Fridays for Future”, a collective critique of the sclerotization of the political system that is effectively articulated by the mass media, is by no means necessarily threatening, but rather a prerequisite for institutional innovation.

Because insufficiencies of political orders show up systematically on the levels that Max Weber already distinguished as fundamental. Administrative staff and legitimacy form the hinges of the political process. The administration, a structure of authorities entails slowing down the pace. The legitimation, the normative framework of a generally shared social consensus, is by no means sacrosanct. The leap of faith granted in elections can be ratified or withdrawn depending on the promise of performance by those in power. Thus, continuous interpretation and reinterpretation of the value references that determine a political order is indispensable. The same applies to the procedural principles that give validity to the values.

The sclerotization of the political apparatus is imminent

So are you reading here in a breviary for social movements, smuggled out of the hallowed halls of legal rationality as a sniper? Yes and no. In modern societies, direct-democratic initiatives are increasingly making a name for themselves. Political sociology discusses “communities of interpretation of the situation” (Birgitta Nedelmann), collective movements that, in contrast to cumbersome structural organizations, “catch-all” parties and lobby-oriented associations, act in an issue-oriented manner. They can be imaginative and flexible in their ability to get issues onto the political agenda. Lübbe-Wolff’s work makes them heard, although their argument naturally assumes that representative-democratic political systems have built-in relative flexibility. The author considers it urgently necessary to think about the institutionalization of alternative forms of decision-making that could counteract the threatening sclerotization of the political apparatus.

Open detailed view

Unbrokenly optimistic, the book counters the fear of populist excesses that is widespread in many places with the argument that systems can only win if they make use of the collective wisdom of the sovereign on a case-by-case basis. Social developments cannot be contained, but the historically evolved form of the demos certainly needs tolerance for politically articulated deviance and non-conformity. The secret of representative democracy lies in the built-in flexibility, which assumes the type of “well-informed citizen” (Alfred Schütz) on the part of the population. Taking up the optimistic pathos of her argument, the author would probably add the idea of ​​the “well-represented citizen” to the democratic order, implemented in promising proposals. It depends on the details, and demophobia would remain no more than a specter.

The courage with which the author tackles a sensitive subject is impressive. The accusation of populism is obvious, but the argument is miles away from that, since the proposals are all ideas worth considering, to pay more attention to the interdependence of institutionalized decision-making logic and initiatives from the pre-political area – for the sake of democracy. Lübbe-Wolff emphasizes the interaction, but hopes that the expansion of participation will lead to greater elasticity in the political system. With an unbroken, optimistic, enlightening gesture, she relies on the argument of civilizing the sovereign by making greater use of his cleverness on a case-by-case basis.

Tilman Allert taught sociology at the Goethe University in Frankfurt.