Politics in the 21st Century

Politics no longer solves problems. This is how many voters justify their decision to vote for the left and right fringes of the political spectrum. In doing so, they are also voting for authoritarian and anti-elitist parties (interestingly, after a period of anti-authoritarian and elitist movements), which are more likely to be trusted to solve the problems that seem to have got out of control due to their illiberal approach that restricts freedom and equality in society. The democratic centre seems to be experiencing a historic crisis of confidence and with it democracy as a system. In fact, the parties of the democratic centre are partly to blame for this. The rather uninspired exploratory paper from the CDU/CSU and SPD also suggests that politicians have barely understood how deep the causes of the current upheavals really go. The deeper cause of the political failure is almost paradoxical: politics has become impossible in times when politics is more important than ever.

It is no coincidence that forms of patrimonialism can be observed today, a term that goes back to Max Weber and describes the takeover of the state by a person who turns against established elites and institutions in order to save the state for the citizens by becoming a state themselves. This form of self-legitimisation is based on the intention of restoring society and nation and the promise of being able to solve problems again. However, both the constitution of society and the nature of the problems have changed. Politics in the 21st century literally needs radically new approaches for a society that barely exists as such and for problems that can hardly be solved politically

Why politics has become largely impossible

People  only  to a limited extent

The pandemic and social media have significantly changed people’s political and media behaviour. Everyone has their own informational and psycho-social approach to the world. Reality no longer exists in an interpersonally objective sense, truth is only of limited importance, it is no longer a common interest. The digital „media“ no longer just prepare or curate information, they also pre-structure our perception. According to Habermas, „semi-publics“ are formed in which the focus is on demarcation and confirmation rather than rapprochement and discourse, i.e. motives that actually work against democracy

Libertarian and authoritarian thoughts have increased in the minds of almost everyone. It is very easy to believe in self-constructed realities in an almost completely deconstructed and decontextualised reality. At the same time, the future has lost its narrative power. Social media is like a mirror in which we do not see society, but actually recognise ourselves as victims through constant comparison with others. Loss is a fundamental problem of modernity, analyses sociologist Andreas Reckwitz. A society cannot be creative and confident if people are angry, anxious and impatient. We are going round in circles faster and faster. The French philosopher Paul Virilio called this „frenzied standstill“. And this is exactly how politics is perceived today: society is exhausted by conflicts over distribution and battles for attention that no longer generate a future. It is a society of scapegoats and zero-sum logic. But a good future has room for everyone. That is what defines society. A society without a future ceases to be a society. An unjust society cannot ultimately be a free one, any more than an unfree one can be a just one. Only a radically just society can be a radically free one and vice versa.

Problems can only be  to a limited extent

The number and interactions of crises are exceptionally high. They not only represent a new quantity for politics, but above all a new quality that requires greater strategic, conceptual and anticipatory intelligence. This is because these are not isolated and partially solvable problems, but rather complex, interlinked developments. The complexity of interrelationships, uncertainty about the future and the inequality of people are basic facts of the world and therefore basic problems of politics – they always exist, but especially in times of disruption. The task of politics is to develop new orders in which complexity, uncertainty and inequality can be reduced again, making society and progress possible once more. To achieve this, questions of power and distribution, i.e. questions of order, must be answered anew.

In addition, the nature of the phenomena has changed. They no longer exist in the form of problems that can be solved, but in the form of complex, overlapping developments that need to be shaped. This requires a different kind of policy. However, if politics suggests that it can solve problems, this fuels expectations that politics cannot fulfil. A different understanding of and a different role for politics is necessary. To achieve this, politics must redefine „society“ and make it possible, and it must redefine „progress“ and make it possible

Why politics is still more necessary than ever

Society exists for the common

If politics can only reach people to a limited extent, especially in a divided society, it must act and communicate differently, it must recognise that society has changed and at the same time find new ways to restore society.

Society is the abstract and at the same time very concrete place where individuals interact with each other, cooperate and resolve conflicts. According to co-operative game theory, society must lie at the so-called „core“ for it to be stable, which means that there is no „coalition“ that can improve itself by splitting off from society. A structural division in society, for example between town and country or old and young, is the preliminary form of a split that is beginning to manifest itself in the media and parliaments, as is already the case in the USA. In Mancur Olson’s work, coalitions are formed for „rent defending“, i.e. the defence of existing privileges. It is precisely in complex transformation processes that the concept of the common good changes and the incentive to contribute to this common good decreases, especially in divided societies. Redefining the common good is therefore a politically sensitive process, as it meets with resistance due to the redistribution of privileges. Conversely, those who are obviously privileged often complain about populism. There must be no appropriation of institutions by elites. Because the answer to this is their disparagement by populists.

Progress comes from

If politics can only solve problems to a limited extent, it must act differently. It must create the conditions under which progress can occur. Politics itself does not generate progress. But it can define it and make it possible.

Today, politics essentially consists of a „strategy“, which usually corresponds to a declaration of intent, and „financing“, which usually results in more debt. Politics thinks in terms of bridging, redistribution and regulation. Tasks are no longer treated in a networked and strategic manner, but in isolation and opportunistically. In this way, long-term developments cannot be organised with foresight. If politics is increasingly confronted with shaping tasks and at the same time cannot generate progress itself, society and the economy must step out of the shadow of politics. To achieve this, freedom and personal responsibility must be strengthened. At present, too many expectations and hopes are placed on politics, hopes that it cannot fulfil under the conditions described. The concept of capability must be at the centre of a policy for the future and progress. The future that is possible is made possible by the ability to shape it.

Politics as an idea of

From solution claim to design principle

The omnipresent disruption is taking place because existing structures can no longer withstand the changes. In thermodynamics, the term entropy is a measure of the disorder in a system. It describes the number of possible microstates – understood as disorder – that are compatible with a certain macrostate – understood as a system. Politics also loses its ability to shape the system because the relationship between decentralisation and centrality changes, i.e. the possible micro-states in relation to the macro-state. The task of politics is to bring the relationship between decentralisation and centrality back into balance, i.e. to create a stable framework for the increased disorder so that progress becomes possible.

The idea of disruption leads to the concept of „liminality“. It describes the state between a present that is disintegrating because it has become too narrow and is therefore prone to disorder and a future that does not yet exist and is then organised again. In this state, politics loses its scope for action and, as a result, trust. For this reason, libertarian, often pseudo-utopian, and authoritarian, often pseudo-social, ideas are gaining ground. The crises that necessarily arise in this state of liminality can no longer be resolved with standard instruments. It is a question of new organisational spaces that politics can only open up, but not fill.

Such a policy is based on needs and abilities. Maslow differentiated between deficit needs, i.e. those whose lack one wants to avoid, and growth needs, i.e. those in which one can grow. This is precisely what policy must achieve: security with regard to deficit needs and opportunities with regard to growth needs.

Politics in the dimension

In recent years, politicians have failed to take a forward-looking approach and have tried to solve too many problems in the short term. Many developments were not sustainable and thus became the cause of further crises. How can we now shape policy in the face of uncertainty and complexity? The hidden dimension of progress is the one that links all the loose ends together, creating a connection that is not recognisable in the reduced dimension. Digitalisation, for example, does not take place in the existing „space“, but expands the space by a further dimension. This creates connections that did not exist before. Politics can become „vivid“ through an additional dimension by viewing the seemingly random events of the present from the perspective of a meaningful future. This missing dimension n+1 can be a narrative of the future. In contrast, the current exploratory paper contains hardly any references to the actual challenges facing politics today.

Regulatory policy establishes order in the dimension n+1. In this sense, it is an idea of success and not of preservation. It must have four characteristics:

Simple: Policy must be simple and therefore understandable. Simple heuristics are less prone to error. Simple policies are not under-complex policies, but on the contrary are suitable for creating new room for manoeuvre.

Essential: Politics can no longer regulate everything, but must focus on the essentials. Essentiality also ensures common sense. Because the more detailed and expansive politics becomes, the more difficult it is to create common ground through universality.

Effective: Politics must be effective. This is the only way to justify it and the only way to gain acceptance. All too often, politics has declared itself with good intentions alone. Ideological policies are hardly effective, but cause great resistance and therefore high social costs.

Forward-looking: The complexity and speed of developments are too high for politics. It is impossible to react to certain events and developments in the short term. Resilience alone is not enough in the long term. We need anticipatory policies that think in terms of possible futures and develop capabilities.

The current policy, and in particular its policy approach, is lagging behind the demands and changes of the times. The danger lies in fuelling expectations that cannot be fulfilled and then lead to dangerous disappointments. It is about nothing less than politics for society in the 21st century.