In light of all these problems, I wonder if we are even debating the right issues. Let’s start with the basics. The world around us has become increasingly complex, so we are forced to seek different and more elaborate solutions. But the issues that are most hotly debated are precisely the ones about which our citizens are most uninformed.
Surveys show that only a minority is aware of what the major reform initiatives are all about. This confirms a failure of imagination on the part of those who should know better: the politicians who too easily get bogged down in detail and fail to clarify the broad programmatic outlines; the media, to whom cheap headlines often matter more than straightforward information; the experts who think it beneath them to be straight and “tell it like it is.”
Instead we indulge in forecasts of doom. With almost every new discovery we ask first what risks and dangers it will bring, not what opportunities it will present. Nearly every hint of reform comes under instant suspicion as an attack on the welfare state. Be it nuclear power, genetic research or digitalization, the discussion is distorted beyond recognition: sometimes politicized, sometimes just oversimplified. Debates like this no longer lead to decisions. They turn into predictable rituals, which regularly follow the same pattern, a sort of seven-step process:
First, somebody makes a proposal that would require sacrifices from one special interest group or another.
Second, the media reports a wave of “collective indignation.”
By the third stage, if not sooner, the political parties embrace the issue, some for, some against.
The fourth phase produces a mish-mash of alternative proposals and hectic activism leading to mass demonstrations, petition drives, and overnight polls of questionable value.
The fifth stage is general confusion. People feel insecure.
By the sixth stage, appeals for calm emanate from all sides.
Seventh, and finally, discussion of the problem is usually postponed.
The status quo prevails. Everybody waits for the next issue to crop up. Such rituals might be amusing were it not for their dangerous ability to paralyze decision-making. We fight about things that don’t matter, so we don’t have to face the things that do. Does anyone today still talk about the row over the census, which had the whole country up in arms a few years ago?
Self-styled experts with advanced degrees are invited to speak out about anything at all, as long as they portray these things darkly and frighten as many people as possible. Mock battles are fought out in political or academic circles until the average citizen is hopelessly confused. In these debates, quality is often discarded in favor of verbal brutality, belligerent language, and intellectual fisticuffs. This is all happening at a time when people are already worried about the radical changes they are experiencing, at the very time when citizens who lack expertise on particular topics should be able to depend on outside guidance. I call for restraint: words can injure and destroy our sense of community. We cannot afford this in the long run, especially when we are more dependent than ever on a sense of community.
Are our educated elites still capable of climbing out of the trenches of dogma and making any decisions at all? Who is supposed to set society’s course: those with an elected mandate to do so, or those who are most successful in stirring up public opinion? Representing special interests is, of course, a legitimate activity. But time and again, we see this or that group blocking long-overdue decisions by the uncompromising defense of its own special interests. I urge everyone to act more responsibly!
print version
return to list
previous document