Definition of a democracy from below – for a political idealism

Democracy means rule of the people. We do not live in such a democracy. The political system produces governments that no longer act in the name of the people. It is time to adapt the democratic system to the maturity of modern society and the challenges of the present. It must function effectively, fairly and rationally. We must rebuild democracy from the bottom up.

Such a plan already exists. It has been dismissed as political idealism. What does idealism mean? Don't we need ideals?

This text is the English translation of the German article by the author, which was published here on March 31, 2025.

Representative democracy: a political game

Power has always been exercised in the interests of a few. That's why it's called power. (If I can get my way, I'll just do it.) That will never change. Now some people say (I thought the same until the beginning of the century) that in our democracy, rather than having rulers over us, we have governments, who, instead of exercising power, govern in the interests of their voters. The excesses of power seemed to belong to history or to the countries that were undemocratic. If we didn't know it before, the 2008 financial crisis has shown us that our governments also act in the interests of the super-rich. So the very rich are de facto in power, albeit indirectly.

Why is that? Are politicians simply corrupt? The world is not that simple. First, we need to understand what our representative democracy is. It replaced the power of a ruler established directly by the rich or inherited in wealth. This ruler had, of course, represented his own interests and the interests of those on whose support he depended – usually those of the rich. The political system was consequently optimized for this goal: it was centralized and top-down.

The revolutions replaced the rulers with elected governments. However, power remained centralized and the political system remained top-down. At first, this seemed all right to the voters because they assumed that now they themselves (through their representatives) were in power. In practice, however, the elected rulers soon became modified autocrats. This is because centralized power inevitably changes those who exercise it. Exceptions to this rule are very rare. Even more rare when those in power govern within a system designed for the exercise of power. Governments and parliaments have spent many decades perfecting this system. This, too, was a natural development – it was their system and they wanted it to work well.

For the rich, the revolutions were initially a challenge, but they mastered it brilliantly. After all, they owned the means of production, and the governments wanted production to take place so that the population would have jobs and the state would have tax revenues. That was the carrot that the rich held. If the carrot didn't work well enough, they held the whip of the threat behind their backs, threatening to stay away or leave with their means of production. That was enough to make the democratically elected governments decide in their interest. Many of those in government probably simply believed that they were acting in the interest of everyone by keeping the rich in a good investment mood.

Our democratic political system has replaced the king with a government, but the power structures remained largely unchanged: centralized, top-down, tending to be autocratic. Only those in power change every four years.

Then the power of the media grew into a decisive political factor. Through the media revolution of the last two decades, the non-rich could theoretically also exert a direct influence on the established political game. The danger that new people not shaped by the political system would come to power as a result was low, but because the rich wanted to control the media anyway (media consumers were also consumers of goods and services), they ensured that the internet was privatized, i.e. commercialized. Thus, the power of the media was placed more than ever in the hands of the rich. As the political game increasingly took place there, they were well prepared to exert influence.

In addition, there was and is, of course, the option of making a future head of government a highly paid supervisory board chairman or hinting to a minister that he will receive millions in consulting contracts after his government job, but in Germany this was not decisive for a long time (although it was used). But that is changing. Capitalism has changed with the rise of the internet and the concentration of power and capital that goes with it, and with it the strategies of the super-rich. They want to supplement their ruthless digital power with ruthless political power. They want to influence governments directly and are becoming successful in more and more countries. They will do so in Berlin, too.

Capitalism has been transformed by the triumph of the privatized internet. The new super-rich want to add ruthless political power to their ruthless digital power. And they are increasingly successful.

So what is our representative democracy? It is a political system in which governments make decisions from the top down, safeguarding the interests of the super-rich, and public opinion is influenced in such a way that voters stay in the game and don't step out of line. Our representative democracy is a political game. But not a rule of the people.

Our representative democracy is a political game. But not a rule of the people.

Democracy built from the bottom up

In our political system, everything is done in the name of the people. Formally. If, for example, the government takes on billions in debt at its own discretion or accepts a nuclear war with its policies, it does so in the name of the people, even if the majority of voters might see it differently. The term “people” is therefore understood in the abstract. Abstracted, it can be used almost at will. And abused. This is practically unavoidable when governing from the top down.

My definition of the people is very specific: it is your neighbor and your child's teacher, the bus driver who takes me to the train station, and the lady professor with whom I am talking on this train. It is us. Can this people rule in a state? Can it govern? Yes, but for that to happen, the state would have to organize and manage itself differently. It would require a different political system. I have described such a system in my book “Redesigning Civilization – Wie erschaffen wir die westliche Zivilisation neu?” (Redesigning Civilization – How Do We Rebuild Western Civilization?), which was published in German.

There is a well-thought-out concept of direct democracy that is adapted to the needs of the modern state and combines the advantages of representative democracy with the idea of the rule of the people.

There is a very nice and coherent draft of a democratic state system, which comes from two prominent US-American system thinkers: Russell L. Ackoff and Sheldon Rovin. They described it in their book “Redesigning Society”, published by Stanford Business Books in 2003. This draft was consistently developed from the bottom up with the aim of eliminating the weaknesses of our current political system.

The basic unit of this system consists of approximately 100 citizens who either live or work in one place. They come together and make all the decisions that affect them, and they do so by consensus. They elect one person from among their number to lead this basic unit.

The leaders of about ten geographically contiguous basic units form the next higher government unit. This process continues until the unit of the highest (usually national) level is formed. In Germany, this process would be complete after seven steps, because the seventh level can already represent 100 million eligible voters.

The remaining officers needed at each level of government are also elected by the members of the respective unit – these may be experts who do not belong to the unit. The leaders of the units at all levels are expected to participate in the meetings of the units at the next higher and next lower levels. Thus they participate directly in the work of units at three different levels. In doing so, they interact directly with the leaders of five different levels of government: two above their own level, two below, and those at their own level. These interactions facilitate coordination and decision-making throughout the system.

Those who work in an area where there is no housing (for example, in a complex of buildings with shops or offices) should belong to the basic unit that governs that area. People could therefore participate in the work of several basic units where they have a place of residence or work. However, they may not vote more than once in any given election.

At the bottom of each ballot is an entry: “someone else”. Those who vote for “someone else” are protesting against the candidates offered. If “someone else” were to receive the majority of votes, new candidates would have to be selected and the election repeated.

The ballot has degenerated into a choice between parties and propaganda campaigns. The introduction of the option to vote against all candidates and to recall office holders would enhance the voice of the people.

Political parties are permissible and even desirable. However, their election programs must be more than a collection of platitudes. They must include an explanation and justification of the objectives, as well as the amount and type of funds required and their sources. Non-partisan candidates are also required to publish such detailed programs. An elected official who fails to keep his or her campaign promises or makes no significant effort to fulfill them can be removed from office by the voters. A non-partisan campaign committee ensures that the election campaign is conducted constructively and does not aim to denigrate opponents. It would issue a warning in the event of a negative election campaign and, if repeated, would exclude the candidate from the process.

Each unit is accountable to the units directly below it. The units are completely free in their decisions as long as these have no effect on other units. If other units are affected, they must agree to the decision. If they refuse to give their consent, the deciding unit can turn to the next higher unit. The higher-level units may only take action if they have been authorized to do so by the units belonging to them. All power and resources flow from the bottom up in this system.

It is possible to design a political system in which power is gradually delegated from the bottom up by the citizens. In this system, responsibility always lies first with the directly involved citizens. If it seems appropriate to them for a specific task, they can shift their power (but not responsibility) upwards.

Ackoff and Rovin illustrate this flow of power and resources with examples. For example, lower-level units might decide to operate their own schools, but delegate responsibility for policing to higher-level units. Whenever an authority is delegated upward, the delegating units must either provide the resources necessary to carry out the delegated authority or authorize the serving unit to collect fees for doing so. Public services would therefore tend to be located at the level at which they can be provided at the lowest cost. (This system assumes that the units decide on and collect their own taxes.) The budgets of all units must be approved by the units to which they belong.

The units at all levels create plans, policies, laws and regulations. Their directly elected “governments” or administrations are responsible for their implementation. These are controlled by their units. Each unit is responsible for ensuring that the plans, policies, laws and regulations of the units belonging to it are coordinated in order to resolve any conflicts between them. Furthermore, no unit is permitted to create a plan or policy that conflicts with a plan, policy, law or regulation of the lower level without its consent.

However, it is unlikely that conflicts or inconsistencies will arise between levels, since each unit (except, of course, the lowest and the highest) contains members of both higher-level and lower-level units; these members will reveal potential sources of conflict or inconsistency in good time. This makes it unlikely that measures will be taken that have unforeseen negative effects on other units.

Now, the design stipulates that all decisions be made by consensus. Is that possible? The authors (Russell L. Ackoff was a highly experienced consultant in decision-making and restructuring processes) refer to their experience and say: “Yes, we have never encountered a case in which consensus was not reached”.

The trick is to agree unanimously on an approach, on the criteria and on the decision-making process, instead of starting with opinions and ready-made solutions. If no consensus is reached at the end of the decision-making process, the participants can unanimously agree on a practical experiment based, for example, on the analysis of empirical data on the issue at hand. If the experiment was developed collaboratively, its outcome will be accepted by all. It is useful to have such decision-making processes facilitated by a trained and experienced third party who can help to reframe apparent differences of opinion into issues of definition or fact. On well-defined issues and considerations, the parties always come together. The group can also start by reaching consensus on how it will deal with a situation in which no consensus can be achieved. For example, it can unanimously decide that in such a case the leader will make the decision.

Professionally-led decision-making based on facts always leads to consensus. Such decision-making would change our society and improve the solutions to our problems.

Due to the design of this system, there are no more national and local elections. The executives of the state are elected at all levels in the step-by-step, grassroots democratic process described above.

Democracy from below, but federal

The multi-level system described above can be adapted to the needs of a federal system, such as in Germany, Switzerland or the US. The structure of local communities that govern themselves and send their representatives to the next higher level is good. There is no democracy that is more direct. It leads to a society that works together responsibly and actively. With this system, we would not have to worry about populists taking power at the national or state level, nor would we shy away from unpopular decisions.

Democracy from below promotes a sense of responsibility for the community and cooperation between people. It would create a solid foundation for solving our growing civilizational, societal, and political problems.

In the political system proposed by Russell L. Ackoff and Sheldon Rovin, there is no parliament. Each unit (of which there will be approximately 700,000 in Germany) is its own legislature and elects its own executive. While this could theoretically work, it is very different from what we are accustomed to. Furthermore, it would be almost impossible to create a structure with different sized federal states in this system. The political stage of parliaments with their debates and decision-making would also be largely absent. This would ensure strict objectivity in the governance of the state, but would be suboptimal if fundamental political changes to the overall system had to be discussed and worked out.

Therefore, I would like to suggest that the structure should end at the penultimate level in each federal unit (the federal states in Germany). This penultimate level elects the state parliament (Landtag in Germany) from among its members in a direct election. The national parliament is then elected by all state parliamentarians from among their members in a direct election, in proportion to the population figures. The national parliament elects the individual members of the government from among its members.

The crucial difference to today's parliaments is that their members are elected in a multi-stage process based on direct democracy and not on the basis of nominations by political parties. The parties play a different role in the new system. Instead of exercising or seeking power, they provide a stage and an organizational structure for people who come together because of their political beliefs. This means that they will tend to have a clear profile and will thus be able to make a better contribution to finding the best solutions – not only for the present, but also for the future of society and the state.

The fact that consumption and income are not to be taxed in the draft of the economy described in the book “Redesigning Civilization” means that taxes are not collected locally at the lowest level and then paid to the higher levels as needed. A significant portion of the money collected by the state must therefore be distributed from top to bottom. After that, however, the local units can (as in the model of Ackoff and Rovin) decide freely on how to use them and consciously delegate some of their tasks to the higher level or join forces with other units to fulfill them.

Because their budgets are limited (unlike the state's budget in the current system, which can simply create the money it lacks), they will manage their financial resources carefully. This will automatically create efficiency and healthy competition among service providers and prevent the emergence of monopolies or ineffective state-owned enterprises. The state should use the other part of the tax revenue to fulfill the duties that were assigned to it by society (specifically by parliament), such as operating national infrastructure, defense, or education.

A system in which the structures of grassroots democracy coexist with national and federal parliaments requires the parliaments' responsibilities to be defined. They may only decide on matters that affect all units belonging to them. For example, the basic content of education could be decided nationally, while the organization and operation of schools could remain the responsibility of local authorities.

A parliament should be able to decide by a two-thirds majority which powers it is given. However, this transfer of responsibility must be carried out cautiously so as not to result in a proliferation of power from above once again. However, because all parliamentarians are elected (and can be voted out of office) by the members of the units of democracy from below in a grassroots democratic process, no abuse is to be expected here.

The democracy from below leads to a “socialization” of responsibility, common tasks and resources. Only in this way can one speak of the “rule of the people”.

My pragmatic approach also leads me to propose rules and mechanisms that allow exceptions in the total freedom of the basic units. I am thinking, for example, of the possibility that opponents of democracy will deliberately settle in a region to circumvent the state. However, the hurdles for such exceptions must be high and their application strictly controlled.

Since this is a fundamental transformation of democracy and the state, it will only be possible if the social forces of change have become dominant. The restructuring of the state may even be more difficult to implement than the restructuring of the economy. Even reform parties, when they come to power within an existing political system, suddenly feel an affection for that system. If they introduce democracy from below, they have to voluntarily give up their power. That is difficult.

It will only succeed if these reform parties are really only the spearhead of a broad and dynamic social movement. Then it will be the people's decision, not the party's. Here, too, it is clear that the transformation to an active society depends on a broad social movement for change.

Let's summarize the key points of grassroots democracy, democracy from below: the power of decision (including over expenditure) lies with the people themselves, who form local units. The leaders of these units form a local unit at the next level up, and so on. The leaders participate in the meetings of the units at the next higher and next lower levels. In doing so, they interact with the leaders of five different levels and with their local “neighbors.” These interactions facilitate coordination and decision-making throughout the system. The higher-level units may only take action if they have been authorized to do so by the units within them. All power and resources flow from the bottom up in this system.

This structure stops at the penultimate level in the federal states. This penultimate level elects the state parliament from among its members in a direct election. The national parliament is then elected by all state parliamentarians from among their members in a direct election, in proportion to the population figures. The parliaments decide by a two-thirds majority which powers they will receive. The parliament elects the individual members of the government from among its members.

So how do you define a consistent grassroots democracy, a “democracy from below”? It is a system of government in which the decision-making power and resources lie with the citizens, who come together to make all decisions that affect them. They can decide to delegate certain tasks and the money associated with their fulfillment further up the chain of government. This political system promotes responsibility for the community, cooperation in society and ensures effective governance and efficiency.

What is political idealism?

I can already hear people saying that such a restructuring of our democracy is unrealistic. Only that which is incompatible with reality is unrealistic. If you only consider the CDU, Labour Party and the other parties, if you only consider a system in which party candidates pass laws and form governments to be realistic, then democracy from below is, of course, unrealistic. But then you are denying us, society, any possibility of changing our political system at all. That is not a democratic attitude.

For me, there is a more fundamental reality than the political parties. It is we, the citizens, the people, who actually own the democracy and the state. It is also a fact that our current political system no longer serves us, the people, well. We do not feel adequately represented by the elected government (see surveys). We see the enormous problems that have arisen in the existing system and realize that our governments are not solving them. And we no longer trust them to do so. That is the reality from which we have to start our political discussion.

The only constructive solution to this problem is to take control of democracy. The democratic system described above shows us how to build the state and the government from the bottom up, in a grassroots manner. This state would be more effective in solving our local, regional and national problems, more efficient in using the resources available to us, and more consistent and pragmatic in its work. And it would truly be our state, for which we would feel responsible.

Idealism means having ideals. Because we urgently need a vision for our societies, our countries, and even for our entire civilization, we therefore also need political idealism.

What is generally regarded as political realism means nothing more than continuing to participate in the game of power, selfishness, greed and manipulation. I do not want to be such a realist.

To believe that the mechanisms of power will change within the framework of the current political system is, again, daydreaming. The problems of the present world are too formidable to continue dreaming dreams. That is why we urgently need political idealism. Idealism means having ideals, striving for something better for everyone, not out of selfishness but out of love for one's fellow human beings. The ongoing management of the real existing present is no longer in keeping with the times. We must begin to shape the future. For that, we need ideals. For that, we need idealists.

What ideals would be appropriate for this moment in history? We can only answer this question in a social conversation. There are enough templates to get started, from the statements of the churches to the United Nations' goals for sustainable development. We would certainly be able to quickly agree on goals such as cooperation in peace, mutual support and solidarity, the good of the individual and the community, the development of the individual and culture, justice, equality, and mature social interaction.

Are you perhaps thinking that these are not new values, goals and ideals? Of course they are not. They are and have always been our goals. The problem is that they are not the goals that our states are pursuing. Their priorities, for example, are economic growth and the rise of the financial markets. The governments are busy making decisions in which billions are pushed over our heads, leaving us with nothing but debts – debts that we will pay. The state has little interest in the many thousands of small decisions where a little money could be used to achieve something good and important for specific communities, municipalities or people. There is hardly any budget for these decisions. And the most important goal of its political leaders is to do well in the next election. These are not our priorities and goals.

Political idealism means striving for a system of government that helps communities effectively take care of their concerns, that serves society and not the super-rich, those in power or individual interest groups. It means creating a power structure that promotes the good in society and the humane in people, and weakens selfishness, greed and herd behavior. Political idealism as a basic attitude is not a political program in itself, but it is an indispensable prerequisite for one. That is why I am happy to embrace it.

My ideal for every European country would be a political and economic system that consciously promotes responsibility for our common home, intentionally creates space for nature and culture to flourish, systematically supports communities when they do something good for the common good, and actively helps people to grow in their humanity.

I am a political idealist. And you?

Alan P. Stern is a systems thinker and practical philosopher. Academically trained in both the natural sciences and in practical economic subjects, he worked as a manager and management consultant.

In 2019, his book “Redesigning Civilization; wie erschaffen wir die westliche Zivilisation neu?” (Redesigning Civilization; How Do We Reinvent Western Civilization?) was published.