On Spheres of Justice and Agile Democracy

12 min readJan 24, 2023

Dooming climate chaos, statesmen turning warlords and upcoming regional elections make me ponder on how a more dynamic form of democracy can be the foundation to the multiple crisis our world finds itself in. The solution must come from within. We need to live by example in a manner which others want to imitate. Nuclear warheads did not win the cold war. It was blue jeans. Leopard tanks will not win the war in the Ukraine. A conditional basic income will. Join me in this essay for a vision of agile democracies, where power, wealth and responsibilities are truly shared.

Being sort of new to democracy after such a two decades in China’s one-party system, I am appalled by its wastefulness and surprised by the system’s ability to avoid a public discourse about the topics which really matter. It’s again ballot time. Although it feels as if it was only yesterday that a new municipal government was elected in the town, I call home these days, the province which surrounds it casts votes for a new state government on January 29th.

Upon my return from a few days inspiring exploration of Morocco, where I tried to escape the European bubble of fixing the climate crisis with high-tech investments and also tried to get a fundamental understanding of Islam in one of its native countries, the bill board posters which cover the entire province reflect how much, indeed, democracy has left the path of purposefulness.

The saying goes, that democracy is the smallest evil amongst social orders. But as I ask our ten-year-old son, when he tells us after a school exam, that most of his classmates got lower grades than him: “Why don’t you compare yourself with somebody better or strive for something better? I remind everybody that there is much space for our democracies to improve. In almost every regard. There is no point in comparing one’s own society with those which fare worse.

So, what messages do we learn from the campaign posters, which create a visual cacophony all over the country? Three out of four mainstream parties reflect as a meta theme their inability of transforming themselves. Their slogans and their wording is not dynamic but static and will prolong the operation of a system which is clearly failing us. In a situation where more of the same will not bring about any improvement, we ought to recall what smart people tell us about progress and problem solving. Albert Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Viktor Frankl said the same from a perspective of personal and collective dilemma: When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.

The Christian conservative party, which rules with an absolute majority in Austria’s largest province, is widely known as the workers union for millionaires. Like a chameleon this party has dropped its native color black for the colors of the state flag: yellow and blue. The change of color is program: “here we have the say” (hier haben wir das sagen). What voters could understand: we don’t want immigrants to dictate the terms of how we live. What voters should understand: here we rule, and we are not thinking about sharing power or even stepping down, despite rampant misgovernment.

The Social democratic party, which has an absolute majority in the provincial capital ever since, is in a coalition with the conservatives. Empty minded billboards communicate a similar lack of agility. An aging generation of politicians that does not understand the challenges which lie ahead regurgitates the same slogan over and over again: That’s us (so sind wir). Considering that social mobility has been eroding since the 1990s, there is nothing the socialists can be proud of. Whatever they have contributed to a more equal society after WWII, has almost entirely evaporated, generating graphs which remind of — sorry for not being politically correct — African dictatorships.[1]

According to Teach for Austria,[2] an initiative which tries to create better opportunities for economically disadvantaged children, 289 thousand children and youth live in families with incomes below the national poverty threshold; considering that there are 1,7 million under 20 year-olds in the country, this number amounts to almost 17% of Austrian children living in relative poverty. Moreover, educational achievement is highly hereditary: Austria has the lowest social mobility in the EU, in other words: Austria is the EU society, in which it is most difficult to improve one’s lot. The question which immediately comes to my mind: will more readily education be a real solution to such deeply ingrained systemic inequality? Not only in Austria, but also beyond its national borders?

Education, as we shall see, is only one factor in a more complex equation.

The most striking example of pathological rigidity delivers the nationalist party. The club secretary proposes to close the borders and safeguard national security by turning Austria into a fortress (Festung Österreich), despite a demographic reality which is in dire need of immigration to keep the economy in operation. The provincial lead candidate offers a cryptic “better for you, better tomorrow” (besser für euch, morgen besser), without telling the voter how. I am strangely reminded of China’s Great Wall and a long history of wrong Sakoku policies.

Ok, so back to Dark Middle Ages. That’s the way to go.

The Green party, which deserves my endorsement in this smallest evil of social order, disappoints with an empty “tomorrow” (morgen) and a focus on expensive climate technology,[3] which is almost impossible to scale globally, and will remain for years to come a luxury only small fractions of the world will be able to afford. Sure enough, investments in green technologies will keep the national economy if not booming then at least afloat, but does investment into high tech sectors like mobility and energy really solve this multiple crisis?[4]

The Greens appear as capitalist conservatives who lack — at least on their billboards — a distinct social dimension. The lack of this social dimension and this blind focus on green technologies could serve as a text book case for the black swan theory. The solution to the environmental crisis is to a large extent a social one. Having it not prominently on the political agenda, and I mean here whipping up the electorate with core messages about a new social agenda, makes me miss political vision and wisdom.

Its usually much easier to criticize others than to work out an alternative. So, I thought, what would I put on my billboard posters, if I were to participate in a political campaign. Here we go. I think there are three elephants in the room: Shared power, shared wealth and shared responsibility.

1. SHARED POWER

Which part of society can still make productivity gains to make it more efficient and (if necessary) competitive against other systems (like Putin’s Russia)? Nobody dares to speak about a far too expensive political system which hails from the 18 and 19th century when industrialists and landowners wrested political power from aristocrats.[5] We need another transformation of our democratic machinery which distributes power to every citizen in form of dynamic citizen councils instead of relatively static elected political assemblies and make use of modern communication technology to create widest possible participation in decision making on local, regional and if people believe that we still need nation states also on national and supranational level. [6]

If we don’t, we jeopardize democracy itself. If we don’t, the western civilization will fail as a model in competition against the Confucian model which has been modernized by China through upgrading its system with communication technology[7] and adaptive governance[8] during the last decade. If we don’t, we threaten the survival of our children because the established system reacts too slow to act efficiently in the face of climate change and biodiversity collapse. If we don’t, we admit that politics doesn’t understand how to deal with ecology.[9]

We need to talk about an overhaul of democracy[10] which means that many politicians must sacrifice their jobs for the survival of the next generation, and financial and commercial elites must share their wealth with others in order to create spheres of justice like legal philosopher Michael Walzer once famously wrote. Since those in power are mostly not ready, a braveheart-like revolution seems to be a viable alternative to climate collapse. That’s why we witness the emergence of organizations like Extinction Rebellion or Fridays for Future.

Are there no other strategies to follow?

1. SHARED WEALTH

How should we share wealth and use this shared wealth to create social cohesion[11] which translates to environmental protection? Statistics and qualified literature show that wealth is being concentrated increasingly in the hands of a few; not only globally but also within societies which once were considered equal and fair[12]. Social mobility declines strongly and during COVID19 tech driven corporations have made billions with the hardship and isolation of the people.

We operate our economies in vastly complex taxation systems which require armies of well-paid government officials, lawyers, tax consultants, CFOs and accountants in order to tweak numbers while genuine contribution to society’s well-being in education and health care, is not paid fairly or not at all. Those corporations which gross profits acquire climate certificates to greenwash themselves and create a general perception as if everything is ok. Its not.[13]

We create a labor market for the youth which is absolutely unattractive or guides them into a lifelong trap: working for profit and power instead of purpose and passion. Shouldn’t we build a civilization by rewarding the jobs which we think are meaningful rather than allowing professions which generate little or no social and environmental benefits by hauling in fortunes? Why are the products of three of the five richest Austrians detrimental to human health and social wellbeing?[14]

Red Bull founder Dieter Mateschitz made billions with a sweet energy drink and high risk sporting events shaping a culture of mindless acceleration.[15] Novomatic founder Johann Graf made billions by automating and spreading gambling addiction.[16] Signa founder Rene Benko made billions carving up public and corporate real estate assets in prime locations and thereby driving housing expenses for the average population into unaffordability.[17]

These examples can be replicated in any given democracy showing that these political systems are failing us in the promotion of progress and development.[18] What does it take for public policy to make wise and far sighted decisions, to guide entrepreneurs to add value to society, to guide youth to invest their lives into collective growth rather than destructive narcissism? When will we start to reward with a conditional basic income our individual contributions to a better society and make it impossible for ruthless capitalists to burn the fabric which connects us?

The technological productivity gains of the last 50 years must translate into a conditional basic income which rewards social and environmental contribution; and people need to be motivated to stay in jobs by paying them fairly. This is only possible when we start to fine those who destroy society with their behavior, products and services. While Germany has adopted a minimum salary of EUR 12 per hour, Austria is devoid of this basic form of economic fairness.

There is no law which regulates a minimum salary, but there are industry specific directives which have been negotiated by the federal chamber of commerce with respective industry representatives. As a result, the monthly minimum salary for most employees is EURO 1500 gross or about EUR 1200 net if paid 14 times a year. This translates to an hourly minimum salary of EUR 11.4 gross or 9.1 net on the basis of 1840 annual working hours. In reality, however much lower salaries are being paid.[19]

Recent inflation has increased the monthly expenses for a family with two children to around EUR 4000 and high demand in real estate has made it almost impossible to own a home. So, shared power, shared wealth and shared responsibility are the three subjects for an empathetic campaign. Political parties which don’t have these three issues in their program or on their posters are not a real choice. They will only extend the status quo but won’t bring the transformation we dearly need.

3. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY

Shared power and shared wealth translate to a third dimension which is shared responsibility. The former German chancellor Helmut Schmidt once said that “young people learn in school about their rights, but rarely they are taught about the duties and responsibilities of the citizen.” As long as duties are limited to paying taxes, it will be difficult to create social cohesion in a more and more culturally diverse society.

I am of the deepest conviction that a conditional basic income which connects shared wealth with shared responsibilities will help us to create common ground for joint action. As long as social welfare payments and services are not being used to motivate sustainable behavior, it will be difficult to create the economic incentives which support a transformation to sustainability. it will be difficult to create the economic incentives which support a transformation towards sustainability and, effectively, survival.

How did Carl Sagan once write in Cosmos:[20]

Human history can be viewed as a slowly dawning awareness that we are members of a larger group. Initially our loyalties were to ourselves and our immediate family, next, to bands of wandering hunter-gatherers, then to tribes, small settlements, city-states, nations. We have broadened the circle of those we love. We have now organized what are modestly described as super-powers, which include groups of people from divergent ethnic and cultural backgrounds working in some sense together — surely a humanizing and character building experience. If we are to survive, our loyalties must be broadened further, to include the whole human community, the entire planet Earth. Many of those who run the nations will find this idea unpleasant. They will fear the loss of power. We will hear much about treason and disloyalty. Rich nation-states will have to share their wealth with poor ones. But the choice, as H. G. Wells once said in a different context, is clearly the universe or nothing.

We have a shared responsibility, which is both local and global. Countries like Austria which have a long history of democracy are called upon to drive the transformation towards “agile” democracy, a system in which everybody is a potential politician, and everybody is an empowered agent of change. Our present democracies create a feeling of helplessness.[20] What we need are empowering co-creation spaces, in which I and you can make a difference.

On Spheres of Justice and Agile Democracy

Written by Knut K. Wimberger