Can democracy be globalised?

by Prof Dr Eberhard Hamer

Democracy means sovereignty by the people themselves, who elect and dismiss their representatives, in contrast to the hereditary rulers “by God’s grace”, dictators or appointed political commissars.
Direct democracy with regular national initiatives and decisions at the national level on political issues now exists only in Switzerland. The rest of the democracies are indirect democracies, who have pushed between the Commune and the highest state level organised political parties, which are elected by the individual citizen whereas the parties’ mandates then elect the executive branch. But to whom do these mandates of the parties and the executive are themselves being committed?
Above these indirect democracies, the actual or economic power is now exercised by supranational organisations and networks which are not even democratically elected – for example, the Policy Bureau appointed by the Euro countries in Brussels, or the Central banks (ECB, FED) which have the same if not more power. The Central banks (ECB, FED) have appointed by directors, in case of the FED it’s the owners of the bank. International organisations and global power centers such as the World Bank, the IMF and the US rating agencies are as well not lead by democratically appointed leaders.
For 20 years now, high-finance, international corporations and the media under their influence have maintained that the times of the national states are over. Under the leadership of the American high-finance syndicate, they have built up a dollar empire which, through their FED, increased the dollar unrestrainedly and distributed it as loans to more than 200 countries across the world, making these countries as tributaries (interest plus amortization). This global world empire could not, of course, take any more consideration for nations, and therefore demanded and practiced globalisation.
According to the internationally dictated political correctness, “the freedom of Hindu Kush” is now being defended by the global world, we had to “take more and more responsibility” (that is, to provide money and soldiers) to support the respective economic or military objectives of the “single world power”. We have the alleged duty to accept the world-wide refugee flows “in the name of humanity” caused by the conflicts of world power.
Those who refer to the German people or to nationality are defamed by the ruling elites and their media as “populist”, “right” or even “racist”. This media campaign is designed to evoke the memory of the horrific atrocities committed by the European rulers to assassinate, persecute and discriminate people in the name of the nation. Initially – as formulated by the German philosopher Herder in the eighteenth century – the consciousness of nationality was regarded as a gift of God. But from the second half of the nineteenth century onwards the nation and national identities were misused for violent excesses, particularly in Europe, and especially in Germany. This and the American re-education lead to the defamation of nation and nationality. This is shown in the fight of our policy and administration against every national journalism, against every nationality-emphasizing party, and later even against the danger that the pride of the “Ossis” (people from the former Eastern Germany) on reunification or at the football world championship that “Germany” could again become political guiding direction.
Today, we are living in a time when the ruling political elite and the media they control demand globalisation from the people and the voters are subordinate to the global goals without asking the Parliament. Examples are Germany’s liability for all international banks and EU Member States, invitation of the worlds refugees according to the will of the USA and the EU without Parliament involvement, the energy revolution is decided without parliament involvement according to the will of the international climate protectionists, etc. Now it is no longer the people who decide but the expectations or demands of the international networks.
However, a rule in the name of globalisation can never be in the form of a democracy thatexecutes the people’s will, but is always a hierarchical dictatorship. This explains why our ruling elite has responded to the growing resistance of their peoples so surprised, insulted and uncomprehending – not only in the case of the Trump election, but also that a quarter of the German people are now seeking an “alternative”. Our ruling elite has lost contact with the people, made itself an international order receiver, and in the case of Euro-liability and refugee acceptance clearly acted against the peoples will, this sacrificying democracy for foreign interests.
If the political elites had not been subordinating themselves to foreign interests, but to the interests of their people, there would not have been such strong alternative-democratic (“populist”) movements in the US and Germany. Thus Clinton, Merkel and the Policy Bureau in Brussels would not have been so surprised by their popularity loss.
Democracy needs harmony between the people and the elected leadership. If we want democracy, then it is not the people who must adapt, but it is the leadership who needs to adapt. If the leadership refuses, it will be voted out of by the ever-growing part of dissatisfied people and voters.
To this extent, it is absurd if our ruling elite tries to defame the growing part of the population and voters which are in disagreement with them with the term “populism”. This is not only undemocratic, but also politically suicidal.
Only when “populism” as an articulation and rule of the people remains alive and strong it is possible to have a peaceful change of power instead of a revolutionary one. Such an exchange of the elites as now in the USA may also come in Europe.    •

(Translation Current Concerns)