Democracy work | New generation: parliamentarians for the weekend

The glass dome of the Reichstag building symbolizes the transparency of German politics. However, according to the activists of the New – formerly Last – Generation, it is nothing more than a hollow promise . The influence of money, especially that of private-sector lobby groups , is too great and opaque. After the Last Generation failed to achieve its goals for greater climate justice, its successor organization is now dedicated to advocating for a " new generation of democracy ."

To this end, the group erected its own dome in front of the Reichstag last weekend. It was only partially transparent – ​​and even with the 25-meter-high original, the domed tent made of a wooden frame and white and transparent fabric couldn't compete. But the focus wasn't on outward appearances – it was on what democracy is all about: The New Generation wants to supplement parliamentary democracy with randomly selected citizens' councils. An idea that the Last Generation and, before it, the group Extinction Rebellion had already championed. The German government has also tried this method to increase participation several times , but the results were non-binding and therefore largely ineffective.

Disappointed by the futile appeals to the government during the Last Generation, the New Generation committed itself to do-it-yourself: For a weekend, a self-proclaimed "Parliament of the People" was to meet in the domed tent in front of the Reichstag building to consider how democracy could become more democratic and more resistant to the influence of the profit lobby. The method was intended to anticipate part of the solution: Like a citizens' council, the participants were randomly selected – in such a way that their composition resembled German society as closely as possible.

In numbers, this meant that those selected were on average 46 years old (nationwide: 45 years), 28 percent of them had a migration background (nationwide: 30 percent), and the organizers also stated that they had taken appropriate quotas into account when it came to gender distribution and education.

Nevertheless, the "People's Parliament" was not representative of the German population. The main reason for this: those drawn were all drawn from a pool of approximately 300 volunteers, which in turn consisted largely of supporters of the last or new generation. The group is naturally aware of this problem and therefore intends to expand its pool in the future. However, even then, it cannot be said to be "representative," as this is ultimately never the case with lottery systems for which one must register oneself . To be truly representative, the draw would have to be made from the local population registers – and this would require a larger number of randomly selected "representatives."

These questions were nevertheless irrelevant on the weekend of the "People's Parliament." Of the 60 people randomly selected, about 50 actually showed up. Even "from the extreme southwest of Germany," as participant Evelin told the "nd" newspaper. The 66-year-old was active with the Last Generation for several years and is convinced that through citizens' councils, even those voices that would otherwise be ignored are heard. Jorgos, 68, had a less arduous journey. The Berliner, with political roots in the radical, autonomous left, is now a member of Extinction Rebellion. In an interview with "nd," he hoped the weekend would bring a "radical formulation of alternatives" – something he believes progressive parties will abandon once they enter parliament.

The participants symbolically celebrated their entry into the "People's Parliament" by carrying their chairs from the Reichstag meadow into the domed tent. This formed a circle of chairs with several rows. After a brief introduction by the moderator team, the participants stood up, greeted each other, and got to know each other a little in brief conversations. Then it was time for dinner.

The next day began with a controversial discussion about the process and method of decision-making, one participant reported to the "nd" newspaper afterward. In general, it was always questions about the "how" that revealed major disagreements among the participants. In terms of content, the weekend parliamentarians agreed on the key points, which may also have something to do with the fact that they were primarily supporters of the last and new generations.

Otherwise, it would hardly have been possible for the "People's Parliament" to present a "catalogue of principles" on Sunday, which it adopted with a large majority. It reads as follows:

»We want a policy that

1. Protects our livelihoods.
2. Take responsibility now for today and tomorrow.
3. Putting power in more hands.
4. By everyone for everyone.
5. forms of direct democracy.
6. We want a political orgasm.
7. Human dignity – inviolable!«

There are hardly any concrete answers to the central question they set themselves: "How do we reduce the influence of money on our democracy and society?" Instead, the New Generation spoke of "principles for a democracy that is armed against the alliance of the right and the rich." At the end, the randomly selected participants carried their chairs back out of the domed tent, symbolically clearing the space for the next "People's Parliament."