In a recently published essay in the TIME the author Nils Markwardt argues for the “organized suppression” of social problems, especially the Corona measures policy. According to him, constant debates about dealing with the past would lead to a “chronic surplus of conflict” that would play into the hands of populist parties like the AfD.
The Argumentation von Markwardt
Markwardt argues that democracy would be overwhelmed if it tried to deal with everything at the same time. That is why we should, above all, forget the failings of the Corona measures policy. In his argument, Markwardt first makes an excursion into the private sphere. Here, it makes sense to undergo a so-called “life review”. This helps against “fears and depression” and enables more “meaning in life and optimism,” says the Zeit author.
The trend of self-reflection has now spread to the political sphere. And that is the TIME This is a fundamentally wrong approach. “There is hardly a collective conflict that is not accompanied by calls to address and work through it in a large-scale social discussion,” regrets Markwardt. But it is precisely this “form of democracy review” that can “cause damage,” he says. The constant discussion can even lead to a “chronic excess of conflict” that “can block the political debate.”
Populist parties benefit
The result of this is merely a “discourse noise” that benefits the parties on the fringes, especially the AfD and the BSW. They can use the demand for reappraisal to proclaim “cultural wars” and “simplify complex issues into identity-political slogans”. In reality, “several debates” are hidden behind the use of “trigger words” such as “migration”, “pandemic” or “terrorism”.
For this reason, the democratic public would be overwhelmed by having to deal with all these problems simultaneously, says Markwardt. The conclusion that must be drawn from this is clear, explains the TIME-Author. The oft-repeated formula that AfD or BSW must be “confronted in terms of content” is usually ineffective in practice. Instead, populist parties must be robbed of their “strategic advantage”, and this can only be achieved through “organized suppression”.
Criticism of the demand
The demand for repression is met with considerable resistance. Many citizens see this as a dangerous tendency to avoid actual processing and accountability. The Corona measures policy in particular has left deep scars on many people. Trust in state institutions and politics has been seriously shaken.
Former Federal Health Minister Jens Spahn said of the RKI files that this had all been known for years and was nothing new. This statement makes it clear that there is a need for a comprehensive review in order to restore the trust of the public.
A look into the future
It remains to be seen how the debate about the suppression and processing of social problems will develop. What is clear, however, is that a democratic society can only survive through transparency and accountability. “Organized suppression” may reduce conflicts in the short term, but in the long term it could further undermine trust in democracy and give populist forces additional impetus.
In times when society is facing numerous challenges, it is all the more important to uphold traditional values such as honesty, responsibility and transparency. This is the only way to create a strong and united nation that offers future generations a stable and trustworthy foundation.
