Broken promises: the fertile ground for populism

Trust is the foundation of a democracy. It does not come from grand speeches or well-crafted coalition agreements. Trust grows when political promises are kept or, when circumstances change, when they are adjusted fairly through open and shared decision-making in everyone’s interest. Citizens need to see that the state takes them seriously and acts in ways they can follow. It is precisely this trust that is currently being damaged in many places. The real problem is not individual reforms. The problem is the sum of the signals that reach people.

Anyone who repeatedly sees commitments withdrawn or public services cut back eventually loses faith that politics still works for them. Disappointment turns into frustration. Frustration turns into anger. And that is exactly where the fertile ground for populism begins.

The following examples stand for a development that many citizens are currently noticing. They are only a selection of the measures in the current reform package. In the view of many critics, other decisions point in a similar direction. Not every one of them is examined here in detail. What matters is the overall picture that emerges from them. Because trust is rarely lost through a single decision. It fades step by step.

The first promise is that everyone receives good medical care. Yet in psychotherapeutic care in particular, many of those affected are experiencing a development that causes concern. People who depend on support need certainty they can plan around, not additional hurdles. Mental illness does not disappear because benefits are cut or access is made harder. It is often merely postponed. In the end the consequences are borne by those affected, their families and society.

Another promise concerns the role of the media. Journalism is supposed to hold politics to account and expose wrongdoing. That requires transparency. When information rights are restricted or the freedom of information act is weakened, the impression quickly arises that scrutiny is no longer wanted. But democracy depends on government action remaining something people can follow. Whoever dismantles transparency dismantles trust at the same time.

The third promise is that the state treats all citizens equally. In reality, however, many people gain a different impression. Cuts often hit hardest those who already have little room to manoeuvre. Low-income families, people with disabilities or chronic illnesses, and the socially disadvantaged often feel changes first. Those who are strong can usually absorb the burden. Those who are weak often cannot.

Education shows a similar development. For decades it has been stressed that education is the key to equal opportunity. At the same time, many young people are seeing support services reduced or dropped altogether. Pupils with special educational needs in particular depend on this help. To save money here is to save money on the country’s future.

Care is a particularly sensitive issue. For decades people were told that they pay contributions and can rely on being secure in old age. When benefits are restricted or people have to fear losing their entitlements, that shakes this trust. It is not only about money. It is about whether a promise given for a lifetime still holds.

Each of these decisions may be politically justifiable. Budgets have to be balanced. Priorities have to be set. Reforms are part of politics. But what matters is the effect that reaches the citizen. When the same groups repeatedly face restrictions, the feeling arises that the burdens are being distributed unfairly.

Politics is judged by its consequences. It is usually elected because of its promises. Between these two points it is decided whether trust is built or lost.

The historical dimension is particularly striking. Konrad Adenauer and Willy Brandt shaped their parties even though they held different views on many questions. Yet both shared the conviction that democracy depends on the trust of citizens and that the state bears responsibility for social cohesion. One inevitably wonders what they would make of today’s development.

Perhaps an even more interesting question is another one. How must the many committed members of the CDU and SPD feel, people who have worked in their municipalities for years? People who put up election posters, organise information stands and talk with citizens. Many of them joined their parties out of conviction. They wanted to strengthen democracy and take on responsibility. Instead they are increasingly experiencing an estrangement between national politics and citizens on the ground. They have to explain decisions that they themselves often find hard to follow.

This is exactly where the real danger lies. Populism does not grow in a contented society. It grows where people lose trust. It grows where the impression arises that political promises are no longer worth anything. It grows where citizens believe that no one cares about their worries.

That is why many of these decisions act like fertiliser for populist movements. Anyone who makes people feel abandoned by politics should not be surprised when others use that disappointment for their own ends. The AfD does not have to convince many voters. It is often enough for other parties to disappoint them.

One could therefore put it pointedly and say that this reform package acts like a stimulus programme for the AfD. Many developments are likely being watched there with great satisfaction. Every broken commitment and every new disappointment makes it easier for populists to present themselves as the only alternative.

That is precisely why we citizens must not let ourselves be played off against one another. A democracy does not thrive on individual groups asserting themselves against each other. It thrives on people standing up for one another. Today it affects people with mental illness. Tomorrow families. After that people in need of care, students or people with disabilities. Whoever stays silent because they are not affected themselves may soon find that no one speaks up when they need support.

No population group may be discriminated against, disadvantaged or restricted in its rights without being able to count on the solidarity of everyone else. This is not a party-political idea. It is the core of a free society. Fundamental rights do not apply according to the state of the treasury, and cohesion must not depend on whether one personally benefits.

When politics no longer strengthens social cohesion, then it is up to citizens to preserve it. We have to listen to one another. We have to support one another. And we have to have the courage to stand up for others even when we are not affected ourselves. Because a society is not measured by how it treats the strong. It shows its character in how it treats the weakest. Only if we stand together do we deny populism the ground on which it wants to grow.

Democracy does not live on Sunday speeches. It lives on credibility. Whoever gambles away trust loses far more than approval in the polls. They endanger the cohesion of a society. Broken promises are therefore far more than political mistakes. They are the fertile ground on which mistrust grows and populism brings in its harvest.