"Our democracy is now at level six on the development scale from one to ten."

Ms. Nierth, you are campaigning for democracy with "More Democracy". At the same time, democracy is being praised everywhere these days. Are you running into open doors?

We are not concerned with democracy 'yes or no', but with how we shape, live and further develop democracy in practice. Democracy is actually invisible: we cannot see it, we cannot smell it, we cannot taste it - and yet it is there. But democracy is only really there when we people live democracy, experience it, i.e. participate in it democratically. In my opinion, only being able to elect parties to parliaments every four years is not enough. And it is becoming more difficult, who can identify 100 percent with a party today? Advanced democracy means that we can get more involved in specific issues and content.

Political participation - how can this actually work with 80 million people and 80 million opinions?

So citizens can already vote. In addition, there are already some formats such as referendums and citizens' initiatives in the municipalities or referendums and plebiscites at state level. But we also need more participation at federal level, for example through referendums in addition to elections. In fact, we are the only country in the EU that does not provide for national referendums.

Another example is the citizens' councils that the Bundestag is currently trying out. Involving citizens in major reforms and changes simply makes politics better. The mistakes made with the Heating Act would probably not have happened if the plans had been discussed with a citizens' council beforehand. Then it would probably have emerged that a number of important aspects had been overlooked or underestimated. And above all, people would have been integrated into the solution process. Taking people's different perspectives into account would make sense for all major social issues, such as pensions, migration, the minimum wage and citizens' income. We still believe that a few experts can come up with the best solutions for everyone. But it's the other way around. Allowing the diversity of perspectives to flow into democracy would be a guarantee of quality.

So more diversity instead of more expertise in the democratic decision-making process?

Absolutely. One of the tasks of democracy is to leave the king's seat empty. This also applies to experts. They are not the appointed kings. Politics has a completely different level of acceptance when people feel heard and the points of view of all people are included. We approach today's complex problems much better when the views of as many people as possible are included. Even the smartest politician can't know what Lieschen Müller and Gerd Petersen know. You quickly realize that the community, the intelligence of society, is much smarter than me alone. We should incorporate this collective knowledge more, really collect it in order to make use of it.

Participation is a central concept for you. Aren't most people just too comfortable and don't really want to participate?

Most citizens feel powerless on the sidelines. It's like soccer. I'm always the best player on the sofa and think, why can't that idiot get the ball in the goal? But the moment the coach gets me off the sofa and onto the pitch, I'm in charge. Then I realize "Wow, it's not that easy". Then I'm right in the middle of it and can identify with the game in a completely different way than if I'm just watching from the sofa and know everything better. With this in mind, we want to ensure that everyone who wants to has access to the pitch. And if you still want to stay on the sofa - that's fine too. But then please don't complain so loudly.

And who will get me off the sofa and onto the pitch as long as politicians don't provide us with suitable access?

In the local area, in the community, I believe very strongly in addressing people directly. "We need you. We have problem XY here and you can help us tackle this problem. Let's go." That's not so illusory. I believe that almost half of the population in North Rhine-Westphalia does voluntary work. There are many ways to get involved as a volunteer, and "Mehr Demokratie" has well over 10,000 members and 160,000 friends who are involved.

So as their CEO, you are a full-time democracy lobbyist?

First and foremost, I am actually a lobbyist for people and their participation rights in democracy. For me, democracy is the promise of the greatest possible satisfaction for all people. By all, for all. But as long as the satisfaction of all is still unattained, we must ask ourselves how we can democratize democracy so that people become more satisfied. As long as democracy does not fulfill our expectations of it, we will continue to develop it. Today, our democracy is 75 years old. In business, you could not survive today if your company worked with a 75-year-old operating system. Democracy is not a technical invention, but is always on a development scale. Our democracy in Germany is now perhaps at level six on the development scale from one to ten. The question now is, how do we get to level seven or eight? Democracy must also evolve with the times and our needs. That is what we are concerned with.

Developing democracy - wouldn't that be the job of the parties?

The focus of politics is on day-to-day business, and that is challenging enough these days. Unfortunately, politics is far too preoccupied with itself. But also too self-absorbed. "We are elected, so we have the power, period!" It's not uncommon to hear this. Sharing this power with the citizens does not occur to politicians. Which is why laws for more participation generally have a hard time. After all, around a dozen bills for nationwide referendums have already been introduced in the Bundestag. They have all been rejected. Once, in 2002, there was at least a majority, but not the two-thirds majority that would have been required to add referendums to our Basic Law. The citizens' councils that have now been tried out still have to convince politicians before they can be established.

If you question the status quo of democracy, aren't you quickly pigeonholed as an "enemy of democracy"?

If you extend a house or add an extension, are you destroying it? Are you an "enemy of the house"? Just holding on to the existing house unchanged in order to preserve it can also lead to the opposite. I would rather turn it around: Anyone who does not see today that the house of democracy needs a few new pillars fails to recognize the danger democracy is in right now. And I also know many politicians who are very dissatisfied with the legislative processes or parliamentary work. But they never get around to thinking about how things could be changed.

When you say that we are perhaps at level six out of ten on the development scale of democracy - which countries are further along?

Satisfaction with democracy and democratic awareness are significantly higher in Switzerland than here. People there take part in a referendum four times a year, which they can initiate themselves. Can you name three politicians from Switzerland? No, but we do know important topics on which the Swiss were asked. In Switzerland, it's more about the cause than about power. Measured by the democratic well-being of the Swiss and their self-confidence in having the last word as sovereigns, I would put Switzerland at level eight on my scale.

Are there other democracies in Europe that we could look to for inspiration?

Ireland in particular comes to mind as a model for Germany. In Ireland, there is a strong parliament that repeatedly seeks advice on sensitive issues from a specially convened citizens' council and has every change to the constitution approved by referendum. This is an ideal triad of parliamentarianism, citizens' councils and referendums. Imagine if we had a referendum in Germany on every change to the constitution. Former Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny called the constitution "our common book". This is the basis of Irish cohesion, because every Irish person is always involved in writing this constitution through the referendums. This enables citizens to identify very strongly with "their" constitution. Germany can learn from Ireland. To remain playful in the picture, we would then be at level seven.

So from tomorrow, referendums on amendments to the Basic Law?

That would be a first step! We would then also be more aware of how often our Basic Law is amended. At the moment, many people fear that democracy and the Basic Law are in danger because it could be hijacked by the wrong people. Then I would suggest: let's protect the Basic Law by linking constitutional amendments to referendums, for example with a two-thirds majority. I can hardly imagine greater security for the Basic Law.

You spoke about the high level of support for democracy across virtually all parties. Nevertheless, we see this great social divide. How can that be?

At the moment, we have a huge problem with the culture of our democracy. No matter what the topic, we tend to polarize and divide. Corona in particular, with all its attendant circumstances, has been a catalyst for even more people than before to distrust the institutions, the government, the media. And this polarization is dangerous, because each side claims to be on the right side of the argument - and the others on the wrong side. This becomes a problem when the sides want to exclude each other from democracy because they declare each other to be a danger. We have to ask ourselves the question: Can democracy afford to exclude anyone?

We have a huge communication problem - we see the same thing with the digital pig. What is your approach to this issue?

The main problem we have is that people no longer want to talk to each other. We have developed a new format for this, called 'Talking & Listening'. We offer this publicly online every first Wednesday of the month. But also directly on site. We go to villages and communities where people have lost each other and fallen silent. We are either invited by citizens, mayors or associations

Then we invite as many people in the village as possible and meet in the village hall for an evening. Everyone is welcome. We always discuss a previously announced topic that is on people's minds, such as the experience of change, right-wing populism, the pandemic or migration. We only ask one question that evening: "How do you feel about this topic?" We have three hours in groups of four, which we form at the beginning of the evening. Everyone in these groups talks for four minutes about their personal feelings and sensitivities in relation to the topic. And the other three listen. Without interrupting, commenting or disagreeing - that's the rule. And then it's the next person's turn to speak. And the next one. And everyone knows that they won't be interrupted, that no one will argue against them. We do these listening rounds exactly three times, each time on the same question. At the end, we gather together what everyone has experienced with themselves. What moved them? The usual rational discourse does not take place here.

Interesting format. What has been your experience with it so far?

Amazingly good! People breathe a sigh of relief and say, for example: "Finally, a civilized conversation again!" Communication is deliberately slowed down, deepened and sensitive. People only talk about themselves and not the others. The emotional side of conflicts can be revealed and participants often experience this dialog as a relief. My experience is that most people have a great longing for community and for the future. And it strengthens democracy - when I don't have to assert my own opinion, but when it is heard and relates to other opinions. Nobody can change our opinion. We can only do that ourselves. This also involves deepening, changing or sometimes even abandoning our own position.

So democrats are listeners, not fighters?

For me, democracy is not about winning the battle against others, but about seeking cooperation with others. It is not dominance over the minority that is worth striving for, but agreement with one another. If you want to strengthen democracy today, you can put yourself in someone else's shoes every day and ask yourself: "What are this person's worries, hopes and disappointments?" If we do this for a while, we will notice a change in ourselves. Firstly, we see others much more again. Secondly, we notice that we become more generous and flexible in our own attitudes. We strengthen democracy by seeking human, not substantive, closeness to other people. Democracy is a question of relationships with one another. We can criticize opinions and positions, we can even despise them - but we cannot despise people. It is impossible for me to find an attitude. But I can ask: Why do you have it? What disappointments have you experienced? What hopes did you have? And then I realize that I am much closer to people, even if I see things differently in terms of content. And that is a democratic quality that is currently falling by the wayside.

This respectful communication seems to be more difficult for people in the digital space than in "real" life. That's also why the digital pig exists. Why is the internet so often a destructive, negative arena for debate?

Because people don't look each other in the eye. The more distant people communicate with each other, the more uninhibited they are. At the wheel in the car and in front of the keyboard, we tend to become angry citizens. But when people sit together in a room and talk to each other, the style, the attitude, usually changes immediately. In the citizens' assemblies that we have accompanied, there were no such outbursts and human misconduct, and we always had the entire spectrum of society present. They always treated each other very respectfully, even if they had completely different opinions. In this sense, I would like to see a democracy of approaching one another, of turning towards one another and asking questions. Those who are asked will not turn away.

Photo: Burgis Wehry