Real democracy or just fake democracy?

Translater:

Real democracy or just fake democracy?

Do we really live in a democracy? Free elections are all well and good - but what happens next?

The term "democracy" has been used for ages. Democracy is supposed to be a form of government that comes from the people. At least that's how today's dictionaries define it and that's also how it corresponds to the actual meaning of the ancient Greek root of the word.

But what hasn't masqueraded as democracy in the past? Even Hitler's terror dictatorship was trivialized in German lexicons at the time as a "leader democracy". But other dictatorships have also shamelessly presented themselves as democracy. The GDR, the "German Democratic Republic", is just one example of many.

And today? Can at least the large western industrial nations be viewed as democracies? No, I do not think so. What is being done there under the guise of democracy only appears to meet the criteria of a real democracy. In reality, however, individual citizens cannot have a say in anything relevant in these pseudo-democracies.

Democracy? Only the right to vote remains!
Basically, German democracy only consists of the right to vote. Free citizens are only allowed to vote for one party or the other every few years.

But what is gained by this? The programs of the two popular parties, CDU and SPD, hardly differ on many important issues.
And anyway: What do party programs that are presented to voters before the polls say? Which of the projects will also be implemented later? Before the election, a party can promise anything! If things turn out differently after the election, you can excuse yourself by saying that the conditions have changed or that the coalition partner is unfortunately not playing along.

So again: The right to vote is not worth much because the winner of the election does not have to adhere to its requirements.
That was already the case with Hitler. Before his election, he played the great apostle of peace and gave long lectures on the meaning of peace. Many voters trusted him and therefore gave him their vote. They were deceived. In retrospect it was even said that "the Germans" had elected Hitler, so they also bear responsibility for the war and the Holocaust.

I consider parties that ingratiate themselves with voters through populist social benefits and future fantasies without presenting a realistic financing concept to be dubious and anti-democratic
Pretending that one can uninhibitedly benefit from the wealthy and corporations is nefarious given the tough global competition for locations.

Democracy = voting on election programs?
But even if today's politicians and parties were all honest and only promised what they could keep, that would be of little use. How is the average citizen supposed to weigh up the programs of the individual parties? He can hardly judge whether one or another education system is ultimately more successful, or whether this or that tax model ultimately has a more advantageous effect.

But the overwhelmed voter is not allowed to vote on individual policy areas at all. He is expected to decide on the entirety of the complex party programs and the competence of the candidates. An almost impossible undertaking!

In this respect, the right to vote is just a farce, an entertaining show. That's why subsequent accusations such as "you elected them, now you have to pay for it too" or "every people has the government they deserve" are infamous and unseemly. The right to vote can only be understood as a basic requirement for a democracy, as a first step.

Democracy: When the will of the people no longer counts...
How insignificant the right to vote is in our democracy can be seen in the fateful decisions that were made by disregarding the will of the people. 80% of Germans were clearly against the abolition of the DM and against the introduction of the European single currency, i.e. against the euro . Regardless, the people's representatives almost unanimously decided otherwise.

The Brockhaus defines democracy in such a way that only the will of the people comes into play. Accordingly, our form of government no longer has anything in common with a democracy. In our sacred democracy it is even frowned upon to freely discuss the negative consequences of the euro. Woe betide anyone who dares to associate mass unemployment with the euro.

The large German majority was also against the unrestricted EU and against the EU's eastward expansion. But did that play a role, are the concerns of the " stupid gray masses " important in a democracy? If the population has a different opinion on an issue, then that doesn't mean that this opinion has to be respected. Many politicians see this dissenting opinion of the population only requires a re-education measure.

They call it enlightenment. The taxpayer is allowed to pay for his own mental re-education by having to finance the expensive advertising campaigns (which at the same time also compensate the publishers).

Many plebiscites in other EU countries were only pushed through through such penetrating "educational work" in the interests of the government. That's why I think that nationwide referendums are welcome, but one should not imagine that they have already paved the way to a real democracy.

The ideology of hereditary guilt has determined German politics for decades . It is the root cause of the gradual decline that has been ongoing since 1980 (which is often not even named or acknowledged).

Can there even be a real democracy?
But yes, it can! The implementation would be incredibly easy.
Only the votes in the parliaments would have to take place in secret. That would be all. If there were secret votes, the power base of the party apparatus would be broken! Then the party leaders could no longer dictate directions in advance and stubborn coalition agreements could no longer harass politicians.

Only then would all MPs actually be free and only obliged to their conscience, as the Basic Law provides. Only then could one speak of a parliamentary democracy. Only then would the House of Representatives, the Bundestag, be a reflection of public opinion.

If there had been secret votes 20 years ago, there would probably be neither the euro nor the EU in its current form. And globalization could not force a neoliberal downward spiral - there would be no mass unemployment and no falling real wages .

Do you think these are all bold words that can hardly be substantiated? Oh no, it's not like that! Even in our modern times, the laws of logic still apply and cannot easily be overturned even with the most intensive propaganda.

Addendum September 2015:
The importance of our democracy is also shown in the refugee crisis of 2015. Our Chancellor loudly proclaims that everyone has the right to apply for asylum in Germany, that there should be no upper limit on asylum acceptance and that "we can do it". The people have to submit and eat the soup; they have no say. It's almost like a dictatorship.

It is entirely possible (if not likely) that the naive welcoming culture will lead straight to catastrophe. But the population has little opportunity to defend themselves against the Chancellor's policies. Not until the next federal election in two years - but then it will probably be too late. Only a few refugees will return voluntarily and deportations are hardly possible in our constitutional state . A large proportion of the refugees will want or have to live under Hartz IV for generations.

Are there only populist pandering democracies left? As long as money is distributed and the cosmopolitan, borderless welfare state appears to be financeable, everything is good. Most voters apparently don't care where the money comes from.

Addendum December 2017:
Whose money are politicians distributing so generously?
The Jamaica coalition did not come into being and the GroKo is now under discussion. The SPD hastily marked its "red lines" before the exploratory talks - eleven points that are essential for the SPD. For example, the SPD rejects B. wants to impose an upper limit on the admission of refugees and abolish the suspension of family reunification. Nobody knows (not even the SPD) what this generous freedom of movement ultimately means or what it costs the taxpayer.

And that is the big dilemma in our democracy: Politicians take on obvious risks and obligations "in the name of the people", which the beleaguered taxpayer ultimately has to pay for. Do the highly paid professional politicians have any idea what it means when the average wage earner without children is deprived of almost half of his salary ? To finance the further expansion of the welfare state!
Have our politicians noticed that for many hard workers, work is no longer worth it? Because they don't come close to reaching the Hartz IV level with its seamless fully comprehensive insurance system ! Do our politicians know how much the pressure to perform and the intensification of performance at work has increased? Because the bosses save staff for cost reasons (usually out of necessity)?

Redistribution continues under the guise of social justice. Representatives of the people generously and in a celebratory mood distribute the money of the little people and mark the kind-hearted benefactor who is once again giving something to his clientele (more child benefit, building child benefit, more daycare centers, more refugees, more educational opportunities, more inclusion, more integration, etc.). Always more, more, more! People pretend to get money from the rich and corporations. We know too well that the global dumping competition (triggered by the unfortunate reduction in tariffs) does not allow such an undertaking.
Donald Trump has just reduced corporate taxes in the USA (adjusting them to European levels). But there are some EU countries that offer much more favorable conditions. There is an endless downward spiral and politicians and the media still preach that duty-free trade is the source of our prosperity.

Have many politicians lost their healthy relationship with money?
Members of the Bundestag and, above all, members of the government must have control over the use of hundreds of billions of euros every year. It is conceivable that many a sense of proportion is being lost under the influence of this unimaginable flood of money. Which well-earning MP can really imagine the life of a normal citizen who perhaps has a monthly net household income of 1,500-2,000 euros and has to support his family of three with this money? How many retired couples have to be content with a pension of 1,000 euros (because the pension amount has been significantly reduced over the past 20 years)? That should be enough for rent, clothing, food and whatever else comes along. Most people can hardly do without a car these days - simply because (due to political support from corporations and chain stores) the corner shop around the corner no longer exists.

What I'm getting at is: Low and average earners literally have to save every euro that is paid to the state and social security funds, while at the same time tens of billions of euros are generously redistributed - made available for the further admission of refugees, for debt relief or cheap loans in euros -States, for the costs of the European freedom of establishment, for senseless ABM and retraining measures (balance cosmetics of the unemployment figures), for the EU budget, for often anti-market, counterproductive subsidies (car purchase bonuses, construction child benefits, the energy transition, agriculture, new industrial settlements, etc.).

Are the wrong people accused of populism?
It's strange: the very party that responds to the wishes and interests of the population is accused of ingratiating populism. The hallmark of a representative democracy is not to rule bypassing the people. It is almost a joke or even a scandal to criticize respect for the will of the citizens as right-wing populism.

The true populist parties are undeniably the ones that have been pursuing clientel politics for decades and buying voters' favor through electoral gifts and dubious promises (increasing child benefit, higher social assistance, subsidies, car purchase bonuses, zero interest rate policy, VAT reductions, construction child benefit, etc.). And with all these generous gifts, they forget to say who will have to pay for it in the end - through higher taxes, fees, levies, pension cuts and longer working lives.

Populists are also the ones who confuse the electorate with dubious counter-arguments. For example, they act as if they are getting the redistribution money from higher earners, the wealthy and corporations. When they know full well that in the age of globalization, a policy of scaring people away cannot work.

For decades, German establishment politics seems to have only known one direction: the erosion of democracy , the dissolution of German culture, the denial of the right to one's own, sovereign state. In order to legitimize the policy of creeping self-sacrifice, the parameters are being rigorously shifted: what is considered centrist policy worldwide is classified as right-wing extremist in this country and is prosecuted by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution .

A warm request: If you liked this article (https://www.sw-magazin.com/fake-democracy.html), please recommend it. Because only the general education of the population paves the way for necessary changes. Manfred J. Müller thanks you
Note: The meaning of individual theses often only becomes clear in connection with other articles by the author. It is not possible to incorporate all the background and fundamental considerations into a single essay.

The creation of translated pages is currently under construction. Please also use the pages that can be translated with a simple click at www.politiks-lexikon.eu

My websites are absolutely non-partisan and independent!
They are not sponsored by state institutions, global players, corporations, associations, parties, unions, aid organizations, NGOs, the EU or capital lobby, hyped by google or influenced by the cancel culture movement! They are also free of advertising and fees.

Background and analysis:
• Can the EU still be reformed?
• Research: Globalization poisons capitalism!
• History and background of the political SW-MAGAZINE
• Real democracy or just fake democracy?
• German Political Encyclopedia: independent & non-partisan
• Do doctored statistics and state propaganda form the basis of our democracy?
• Poverty research: Which countries with high birth rates are really doing well?
• The infiltration of democracy by the Cancel Culture movement …
• The nasty tricks of the anti-democrats!
• Causes and consequences of global economic crisis
• In Germany wages have been falling since 1980. Why?
• Germany: The brazen proclamation of skills shortage!
• Globalization: the ignorance of the facts
• The political and economic consequences of an brexit An analytical consideration from German view.
• "We have to explain Europe better!"
• When will the Dexit? (the withdrawal of Germany from the EU)
• The rule of law becomes a laughing stock
English: Are EU skeptics angry nationalists?
French: Sont eurosceptiques nationalistes en colère?
Italian: Sono scettici UE nazionalisti arrabbiati?
Portuguese: céticos da UE são nacionalistas irritados?
Spanish: Son escépticos de la UE nacionalistas de ira?
Swedish: Är EU-skeptiker arga nationalister?

Politicians decide whether capitalism promotes prosperity or destroys it. By ensuring fair conditions or not. The European and global wage and tax dumping (as a result of tariff phobia), the zero interest rate policy, the cheap money glut, the open immigration to the social paradise, etc. undermine the market economy and thus lead to ruin.