Category Archives: General Public

(Part 5/10 of the series “Why voting for Kamala Harris is only the first step to saving American democracy”)

Why Does Democracy Feel So Alien to Those Who Need It the Most?

Growing up, I remember the pride my father had in the act of voting—his belief that his voice, along with millions of others, could shape the future of our country. It was a powerful notion, one that made democracy feel alive and accessible. In it, he could focus on his work: He worked in academia, but seeing himself as a “worker of the mind”. At the end of his life, however, even he, with all his abilities to link to politicians and argue with them, felt outside political life.

And this is even more true for many Americans. If they have or need to have other priorities, or if they lack the means, those who do not actively engage in political discourse feel disconnected from this sense of agency. It is a very diverse group, ranging from tech billionaires and self-made entrepreneurs over busy stay-home moms, to, most importantly, America’s working class. They feel left behind by a system that claims to represent them but fails to deliver on this promise. And even though this diverse group contains

In this post, I’ll explore why those who don’t actively engage in political discourse because they have other things to do or because they don’t have the means, feel so alienated now from the political process. It is a very diverse coalition, ranging some of the most wealthy who turn libertarian because they feel strong enough to thrive in a world without rules, to workers and moms who definitely would need social institutions protecting them but join the destructive movement because democracy feels so distant for them. How did we come that far? Again, the answer lies in the rigid, outdated structure of representation—one that fails to acknowledge the evolving nature of our society, thereby disempowering those who need a voice.

Those Left Out: Disempowered and Alienated

For much of American history, the working class was seen as the backbone of the nation. But today, the disempowerment extends beyond the traditional working class. It affects anyone who cannot afford the time, resources, or energy to engage with political processes—people busy building businesses, raising children, or simply trying to make ends meet. The current system of partitioning representation forces individuals into rigid political categories that fail to capture the complex realities of their lives. For these groups, it often means choosing between two political parties that neither fully understands nor adequately represents their concerns..

The Democratic Party may offer some policies that appeal to economic security, while the Republican Party may resonate with cultural values, but neither speaks to the full spectrum of their interests. The result is a sense of disempowerment—a feeling that no matter who they vote for, their lives will not fundamentally improve. This disillusionment is compounded by economic instability, stagnating wages, and a lack of access to quality healthcare and education. When the political system feels incapable of addressing these fundamental needs, democracy begins to feel like a distant concept rather than an empowering reality.

The Disenfranchisement of Marginalized Groups

This alienation is felt by the wide array of people described above. Despite vastly differing socioeconomic statuses, they share a common feeling of disconnection from a political system that seems indifferent to their needs. These groups often have specific, pressing concerns that are find no visible representation in the broader political discourse. The well-known systemic barriers that prevent them from fully engaging in the democratic process, from voter suppression tactics to the lack of accessible information about candidates and policies, only add to that very general problem..

In a system dominated by partitioned representation, these groups are often either ignored or reduced to political talking points. Their needs are acknowledged only to the extent that they serve to rally support for a particular candidate or party. This instrumentalization of marginalized communities further deepens their sense of alienation. When democracy is reduced to a spectacle that happens every few years, with little to no meaningful engagement in between, it becomes clear why so many people feel that the system is not meant for them.

The Role of Partitioning Representation in Alienation

Partitioning representation forces voters to make binary choices that do not reflect the full complexity of their identities. This issue is especially pronounced for those who lack the time or means to fully engage in political discourse. A tech entrepreneur might care about both economic innovation and responsible regulation; a stay-home mom might care about education reform and healthcare. However, the current system forces them to prioritize one aspect of their identity over others when choosing a party or candidate. This reductionist approach not only fails to represent the full spectrum of their interests but also exacerbates the feeling of being politically homeless. When people do not see their lived experiences reflected in the political choices available to them, they naturally disengage. And as they disengage, they become more susceptible to the simplistic, often polarizing narratives offered by populist leaders who promise to “fight for the forgotten.”

How Disempowerment Fuels Polarization

The alienation of those who lack the time or means to engage with the political process—from the working class to busy professionals—has profound implications for the health of democracy. When large segments of the population feel unheard, they are more likely to turn to alternative forms of political expression—sometimes constructive, but often destructive. Populist movements feed on this disillusionment, offering an easy scapegoat for complex problems and positioning themselves as the only true voice of the people.

This dynamic creates a fertile ground for polarization. Disempowered individuals, who feel they have no meaningful outlet for their concerns within the traditional political framework, are drawn to leaders who promise to tear down the existing structures. The sense of disillusionment and betrayal becomes a powerful force, one that populists can harness to further their agendas. This cycle not only deepens divides within society but also erodes the foundations of democratic governance.

The Way Forward: Restoring Agency to the Working Class

If we are to address this crisis of alienation and disempowerment, we need to rethink how we represent and engage all those who feel alienated from the political process—from the working class to entrepreneurs and stay-home parents—in our political systems. The traditional model of representation has proven inadequate—it is too rigid, too disconnected from the realities of modern life, and too focused on maintaining power rather than serving the people.

What we need is a new form of representation—one that is adaptive, inclusive, and capable of reflecting the diverse needs of the working class. This means moving beyond the binary choices offered by partitioning representation and creating opportunities for people to participate meaningfully in decision-making processes. It means providing platforms where individuals can express their views on specific issues, without having to align themselves with a party that only partially represents them.

In the next post, we will introduce the concept of *Civil Democracy*—a model designed to restore agency to individuals by allowing them to participate directly in political decisions or delegate their representation to trusted actors on an issue-by-issue basis. Civil Democracy offers a way to break out of the cycle of disempowerment and polarization, and to build a more resilient and responsive democracy that truly serves all its people.

Stay tuned as we explore how Civil Democracy can help restore trust, rebuild connections, and give a voice back to those who have been left behind.

(Part 4/10 of the series “Why voting for Kamala Harris is only the first step to saving American democracy”)

How Does Our Outdated System of Representation Actively Fuel Polarization?

As we’ve seen in the previous posts, our current system of representation has remained stagnant while society has evolved dramatically. This stagnation has given rise to a sense of disillusionment and alienation, but it has also directly fueled polarization. Today, we’ll take a closer look at how the very structure of partitioning representation has become an engine of polarization in modern democracies.

The traditional “one vote on the ballot” system forces people to choose between rigid, predefined categories, which no longer reflect the complexity of our individual identities. One could expect individualization to have a de-polarizing effect, as people would have greater overlaps in their problem-related interests beyond rigid group boundaries. However, our current system not only loses this potential but turns it into the opposite. Instead, in the partitioned system individualization has a polarizing effect, as the partitioned system simplifies the intricate spectrum of personal preferences and reduces them to all-or-nothing political choices. In doing so, it amplifies divisions rather than encouraging collaboration or finding common ground.

The Dynamics of Partitioning Representation

Partitioning representation means that voters must align themselves with one particular party or candidate, even when that choice fails to capture the full scope of their views. Consider the case of a voter who is passionate about both climate action and individual economic freedom. Under the current system, this voter is forced to choose which of these issues they prioritize because no single party fully represents both, without much chance for the voter to learn about the factual tensions between their two beloved goals. 

This kind of forced partitioning reduces representation to a binary game, where voters must pick sides rather than being able to find solutions that consider the full complexity of their views. This leads to a feeling of political homelessness for those who do not fit neatly into one camp, and it pushes the political discourse to become more antagonistic and polarized. When people feel they must prioritize one part of their identity over others, politics becomes about competition, not collaboration.

Mechanism One: Angry Voters and Political Alienation

The first mechanism by which partitioning representation drives polarization is through voter alienation. When individuals cannot find a party or candidate that aligns with their complex views, they feel unrepresented. This alienation fosters resentment toward the political system. People who feel ignored by the system are more likely to become disillusioned and angry, and this anger makes them susceptible to populist narratives that claim to “speak for the people.”

Populist leaders thrive on the disillusionment caused by partitioning representation, offering simplistic solutions to complex issues and positioning themselves as the sole voice of the disenfranchised. In this way, the rigid structure of representation helps to fuel the rise of populist politics and deepen societal divides.

Mechanism Two: Radical Activists Stay, Moderates Leave

The second mechanism involves the dynamics within political parties themselves. When representation is divided into rigid partitions, non-members become less grateful for party members’ efforts, reducing the social rewards that used to come with party membership. As a result, moderates—who are often motivated by a desire for social recognition—begin to leave political parties. What remains are those who are more ideologically driven, often with more extreme views.

This process leaves parties increasingly dominated by radicals, shifting their positions further away from the center. The moderates, who would typically work toward compromise and common ground, are no longer present to balance out the more extreme voices. The result is a political environment where the extremes dominate, and the middle ground erodes, driving polarization even further.

Mechanism Three: Incentives for Elite Actors

The third mechanism centers on elite actors. In a partitioned system, political elites are incentivized to cater primarily to their core supporters, rather than seeking broader consensus. This winner-takes-all mentality means that compromise is often seen as a weakness, and political leaders focus more on mobilizing their base than on addressing the needs of the broader population.

This dynamic is further reinforced by media actors, such as Fox News, who have incentives to keep their audiences engaged by fueling anger rather than providing impartial information. By focusing on divisive narratives, media outlets help to amplify existing tensions, making it even harder for political elites to pursue consensus-driven policies.

In a partitioned system, elections are largely battles between opposing camps. To win, parties focus on rallying their supporters, often by emphasizing divisive issues and framing the other side as an existential threat. This encourages elites to adopt more extreme positions, which, in turn, fuels polarization among the broader electorate.

The Vicious Cycle of Partitioning Representation

Together, these mechanisms create a vicious cycle. The structure of partitioning representation alienates voters, driving them toward extremes. Moderates disengage, leaving political parties increasingly dominated by ideologues. And political elites, incentivized by a winner-takes-all approach, focus on division rather than unity. Each of these elements reinforces the others, creating an environment in which polarization is not just a byproduct but an inevitable outcome of the system itself.

In a way, this new freedom contains some soothing message: within it, centrist politics are still possible for politicians who are able to overcome the adverse dynamics from angry voters and radical activists. Kamala Harris is a great example for the chance to opt for centrist policies, having been able to push against the radicals in her own party as long as the threat posed by Donald Trump looms large. However, after the election, she will need new ways of informing her centrist agenda—ways that provide detailed, issue-specific feedback from citizens. This is where a system like Civil Democracy, which offers dynamic and nuanced representation, becomes essential.

The rigid categories imposed by partitioning representation are simply unable to keep pace with the fluid and multifaceted nature of modern identities. When people feel that their voices are not heard, they become frustrated, and this frustration manifests as anger, disengagement, or, conversely, as an embrace of more extreme positions. It is no surprise, then, that we find ourselves in a world where polarization seems to be escalating, and where common ground feels increasingly out of reach.

A Path Forward: Reimagining Representation

If we are to break out of this cycle, we need to fundamentally rethink how we represent people in our political systems. We need a model that acknowledges the complexity of individual identities and allows for flexible, adaptive representation. In a society where individuals are defined by more than one political stance, we need to create opportunities for people to express their diverse preferences without being forced into artificial, all-or-nothing choices.

In the next post, we will explore how the outdated system of partitioning representation has left the American working class and other marginalized groups behind, leading to disempowerment and alienation. We will discuss why democracy feels so alien to those who need it the most and set the stage for understanding how Civil Democracy can restore agency and rebuild trust.

(Part 3/10 of the series “Why voting for Kamala Harris is only the first step to saving American democracy”)

What Happens When Our Democracy Doesn’t Evolve as Fast as Society Does?

When my father took me along to the polling station for the first time, it felt like a grand ritual. It was a ceremony that connected us to something much larger—a voice in shaping the nation. But as the years passed, that ritual lost much of its power, as it did for many others. Voting, which once symbolized agency, began to feel less like a genuine expression of control and more like an empty gesture. Today, more and more Americans are asking: Is voting enough? Why does it feel like our democracy is no longer capable of solving our problems?

The One Vote on the Ballot: A Model from Another Era

The fundamental problem lies in the structure of our representative democracy—a structure that has remained largely unchanged while society has evolved. The current democratic model, what I call the “one mark on the ballot” approach, originated in a simpler, less complex world. After World War II, the idea of voting for a candidate every few years made sense. People saw themselves as part of coherent groups—working-class, middle-class. And these identities were not only cultural alignments, but contained their positions in thousands of decisions to be made to improve their lives. This partitioning of representation was a natural fit for societies where individuals largely identified with stable social classes.

But today, we live in a different world. The concept of identity has become far more fluid and complex. People do not fit neatly into the rigid categories that traditional representative systems are built around. Instead, we navigate a multitude of identities—economic, cultural, geographical, ideological—each of which plays a role in how we perceive our interests and desires. Our representative system, based on a simplistic partition of society, cannot capture this complexity.

In the mid-20th century, voting provided a sense of indirect efficacy—people could see their chosen party in power and feel that their voice had an impact on the direction of the country. Today, however, our society has become individualized, interconnected, and more diverse, but our institutions have not kept pace. The “one mark on the ballot” approach is insufficient to express the many layers of our identities and the complexities of our views. As a result, many feel politically homeless—unable to find a party or a candidate that represents the whole spectrum of what they care about.

Stagnation Breeds Disillusionment

This stagnation of political representation has serious consequences. It fosters a sense of disillusionment among citizens who no longer see themselves in the candidates on the ballot. When the political system fails to represent the complexities of modern identities, people lose trust in it. And when people do not feel represented, they also do not feel a sense of ownership over political outcomes. This disconnect is evident in declining voter turnout, a growing distrust in political institutions, and the rise of political extremes that promise to shake up the status quo.

We often hear that people are apathetic, but this isn’t true. People care deeply about the issues that affect their lives—whether it’s climate change, healthcare, economic security, or social justice. The problem is that they don’t see the system as capable of addressing these issues. They don’t feel that their participation will make a difference, because the structures in place are outdated and unresponsive to the realities of modern life.

Consider the analogy of a 20th-century factory that continues to produce the same model of car while consumer demands have evolved dramatically—as was the case with the Trabant model produced in the former GDR, the Ford Crown Victoria, or the Chevrolet Impala. The factory refuses to update its production line, and as a result, its cars become increasingly irrelevant in the market. Our democratic institutions, much like that factory, have failed to evolve in response to societal changes. They still produce the same type of representation, expecting it to fit the increasingly diverse needs of a 21st-century citizenry. The problem is not that the system is rigged, but that it is rigid.

The Consequences of a Rigid System: Polarization and Alienation

This disconnect between political institutions and social realities has contributed to a dangerous polarization. When people feel they must align with one of two broad and rigid categories, they are forced to prioritize one aspect of their identity over others. For instance, someone who cares deeply about both environmental protection and economic freedom might find no party that represents both of those values effectively. Instead, they have to choose, sacrificing one concern for another, which leads to frustration and division.

Moreover, this kind of representation encourages zero-sum thinking. When representation is partitioned into binary choices, the outcome is often a winner-takes-all approach to politics. This dynamic, in turn, fosters a sense of alienation among those whose views are not fully represented by any party. This is one of the root causes of the increased polarization we are witnessing today.

This disconnect manifests through mechanisms that drive polarization and societal disillusionment, including the alienation of voters whose preferences are not adequately represented, and the increasing dominance of extreme voices in political parties as moderates disengage.

In this environment, political discourse becomes increasingly antagonistic. The nuance that used to characterize debates over policy is lost, replaced by tribal loyalty and a deep suspicion of the “other side.” People are less willing to engage with perspectives different from their own because the system frames politics as a battle for dominance rather than a collaboration to address shared challenges. The system itself, by not evolving, has created the conditions for its own dysfunction.

What We Need: A More Adaptive Democracy

If we are to address the crisis of polarization and alienation, we need a new approach to representation—one that is flexible, inclusive, and capable of reflecting the diversity of modern identities. We need a democracy that allows people to engage with politics in a way that aligns with their multifaceted lives. This means moving beyond the one mark on the ballot and creating opportunities for ongoing participation.

Our institutions must adapt to provide meaningful avenues for participation beyond elections. People should have the ability to decide not just who represents them every few years, but also how they want to be involved in specific decisions. Imagine a system where citizens could choose to participate directly on issues that matter most to them, or delegate their representation to trusted individuals or organizations who share their values. Such a system would not only give people more control but also ensure that political representation is dynamic and responsive.

This kind of adaptive democracy would reduce polarization by allowing individuals to express the full spectrum of their views rather than forcing them into predefined categories. It would allow people to feel heard, and to see their preferences reflected in real time, rather than waiting years for the opportunity to vote for a candidate who only partially aligns with their beliefs.

The Path Forward: Building a Democracy for the 21st Century

Our current crisis is not just one of leadership or policy; it is a crisis of structure. The institutions that once worked well for a simpler, less connected world are failing to meet the demands of today’s society. We need to rethink how representation works. We need a system that allows for both direct participation and the delegation of decision-making power to trusted representatives—a system that is flexible enough to capture the complexities of our identities and the realities of our interconnected world.

Such a transformation won’t be easy, but it is essential if we are to restore faith in democracy. By embracing new forms of representation, we can create a political system that doesn’t just work for the people, but with the people. In the next post, we will delve into the three mechanisms by which our outdated system of representation actively fuels polarization and societal disillusionment, setting the stage for the need for a more adaptive model of representation.

(Part 2/10 of the series “Why voting for Kamala Harris is only the first step to saving American democracy”)

Why Do Millions of Americans Feel Drawn to Populist Leaders Like Donald Trump?

When I was growing up, my father instilled in me a deep pride in democracy. He spoke of voting as a powerful act—an act that shaped our collective destiny. But as the years have passed, for many, that pride has turned into disillusionment. Today, millions of Americans feel disconnected, disempowered, and unheard. This deep-seated sense of alienation has given rise to populist leaders who promise to represent “the forgotten.” Why has this happened? Why do so many feel drawn to figures like Donald Trump, who claims to fight a system that feels increasingly distant and unfair?

The answer lies in a fundamental problem: our democratic institutions have failed to evolve alongside our society. As the world has become more complex and interconnected, our mechanisms for representation have stagnated. The result is a democracy that no longer resonates with the lived experiences of many of its citizens. Instead of feeling like active participants in shaping their own futures, people feel as if they are mere spectators in a drama unfolding beyond their control. Populist leaders thrive on this feeling of alienation, offering simple answers to complex problems and promising to take back control. To understand why populism has gained traction, we need to dig deeper into the root causes of this disempowerment.

The Appeal of Populism: When Control Slips Away

Populism, at its core, is about tapping into the frustrations of those who feel marginalized by the system. It is a political style that claims to speak directly for “the people” against a corrupt or out-of-touch elite. In the case of Donald Trump, his critique of the American system—often framed as “rigged”—resonates because it echoes a real sentiment among millions of Americans. While many of Trump’s claims about election fraud, a “deep state,” and institutional bias are unsupported by evidence, the emotional power of these messages lies in their ability to give voice to feelings that are deeply rooted and widely shared.

To understand the appeal of populism, consider the analogy of a crowded room where people are trying to speak. In the past, the room was smaller—people felt like they had a chance to be heard, and when they spoke, they felt their voice mattered. Today, however, that room is filled with more voices than ever before, and the microphone is often controlled by a few powerful interests. When people feel drowned out, when they sense that the decisions affecting their lives are made far away by people who do not understand them, they become desperate for someone who will speak for them—someone who will grab the microphone and say, “I hear you.”

Trump’s success was not built on policies; it was built on this promise to be the one who listens when no one else will. He capitalized on the profound sense of loss that many Americans feel—partly a loss of economic security or social status, but most of all the sense of losing control over their own destiny. As Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt point out in *How Democracies Die*, this sense of loss and alienation creates fertile ground for the rise of figures who position themselves as saviors, promising to upend the status quo and restore a sense of agency to those who feel ignored.

The System Is Failing, Not the People

It’s important to recognize that the appeal of populism is not a sign that people have lost faith in democracy itself; rather, it is a reaction to a specific kind of democracy that no longer serves them. Being a scholar for most of my adult life, I cannot spare you one new concept. Our current political system forces people to fit into pre-defined boxes—you vote for one candidate, one party, and hope they represent all of your complex beliefs and values. I call this “partitioning representation,” because these boxes are designed not to overlap. But people are not monolithic, and neither are their interests. The “one mark on the ballot” approach worked in a world that was simpler and more stable, but in our modern, individualized society, it simply cannot capture the nuance of people’s needs and desires.

This is where the disconnect begins. People do not feel accurately represented, and as a result, they do not feel in control. Political scientists call this “political efficacy”—the belief that one’s actions can influence political outcomes. When we lose that sense of efficacy, we become disillusioned. And this disillusionment manifests in different ways: for some, it means disengagement from politics altogether; for others, it means turning to candidates who promise to tear down the existing structures and rebuild them in a way that supposedly serves “the people” better.

Populism as a Call for Agency

The rise of populism can thus be seen as a call for agency—a desperate demand to be heard and to have a say in the direction of the country. This isn’t inherently a bad impulse. In fact, the desire for more direct influence over political outcomes is something that could strengthen democracy, if it were channeled properly. Populism, however, only offers an illusion of agency. Leaders like Trump promise to take back control from elites, but in practice, their solutions tend to concentrate power even further, eroding democratic norms rather than expanding them.

Here, the historical analogy of the Roman Republic serves as a warning. When the Roman elite became disconnected from the needs of the populace, figures like Julius Caesar emerged, promising to restore power to the people. Instead, what followed was the consolidation of power and the eventual end of the republic. Populism, without proper structural reform, risks repeating this cycle—replacing one set of elites with another while failing to address the underlying issue of disempowerment.

Moving Beyond Populism: A Need for Systemic Change

The solution, therefore, is not simply to reject populism, but to address the legitimate grievances that give rise to it. We need a new way of doing politics—one that allows for meaningful and continuous participation, where people can influence decisions in real time rather than once every few years. We need a system that provides citizens with the choice of how and when they want to participate in political decision-making. This means allowing individuals the flexibility to either directly involve themselves in a decision or delegate their preferences to trusted representatives, depending on the issue at hand and their own capacity.

Moreover, we need to broaden the scope of representation. People should not be limited to traditional political parties when deciding who represents their interests. Instead, they should have the freedom to trust and empower other actors—whether they be community leaders, experts, or civil society organizations—who are better positioned to reflect their specific values and needs. This openness would create a richer, more nuanced form of representation, one that recognizes the complexity of people’s identities and the diversity of their interests.

This rethinking of political participation and representation is what I call *Civil Democracy*. It is characterized by two core principles: *meta-decision freedom*, which allows citizens to choose how they engage with each political decision, and *actor openness*, which broadens the range of representatives beyond just political parties. By implementing these principles, we can counteract the forces that drive people toward populism and instead create a democracy that truly serves its people. Civil Democracy is about making sure that the microphone in that crowded room is passed around, giving everyone a chance to speak and to be heard.

Conclusion: Reclaiming Democracy from Populism

The rise of populism is a symptom of a deeper crisis in our democracy—a crisis of representation and efficacy. People feel disconnected, unheard, and powerless, and populist leaders exploit these feelings to gain power. But the solution is not to silence those who feel disillusioned; it is to give them real, meaningful ways to participate in shaping their own futures.

In the next post, we will explore how our current system of representation, rooted in the “one vote on the ballot” model, contributes to polarization and further alienates citizens. If we are to save democracy, we must rethink how we represent people and how we ensure that every voice truly matters.

(Part 1/10 of the series “Why voting for Kamala Harris is only the first step to saving American democracy”)

When I was a teenager, I remember my father taking me along to the polling station. He was very proud of living in a democracy. The alternative, just kilometers away, claimed to serve the true needs of the people but was indeed a dictatorship: We lived in the western part of Berlin, within walking distance of the Berlin Wall and the communist regime. And it wasn’t only this contrast that informed his pride. He knew what he was voting for, and despite occasional dissatisfaction, he knew the party he voted for, and of which he was a member for some years, truly represented his values. For him, voting was a powerful act, an expression of control over our lives. And I believed him. The act felt grand. With voting, we were steering our world. But as I grew older, that sense of empowerment faded. Like so many Americans today, I began to wonder: is voting really enough?

Over time, I’ve noticed a growing sense of disillusionment with traditional voting, not only in the United States but also in other democracies. We’ve come to rely on voting as our primary means of influence. Every few years, we cast our ballots, hoping for meaningful change, only to find that the issues we care most about remain unresolved. We’re left watching from the sidelines, disempowered as policy decisions are made far from our reach. For many, voting is starting to feel more like a ritual of democracy than an effective means of participation.

This disenchantment has found powerful expression in the rise of figures like Donald Trump. Now, I’m not a Trump supporter – quite to the contrary. Politics needs to be done by many hands, these hands need to be connected in a useful way, and populists who promise to be alone the rescue always end up making things worse.

But it is important to see that Trump’s critique of the “system” resonates with millions who feel that traditional politics no longer work for them. They see this inherited billionaire as an outsider who speaks to their frustrations, whether his claims are substantiated or not. When he decries a system he claims is “rigged,” he taps into a deep-seated feeling of alienation. It’s a sentiment that isn’t unique to the United States; people across the political spectrum and around the world feel increasingly disconnected from the democratic process.

And this disconnection matters. It indicates that we are dealing with more than a political problem—it’s a democratic crisis. I often think back to those trips to the polling station with my father, to his pride in the idea that his vote truly counted. But the reality today is that people feel their votes, even when counted, don’t really change anything. Traditional democracy, as it exists now, was designed for a different era. Our systems have not evolved at the same pace as our societies, and it shows. We are left with institutions that prioritize control over adaptability, and this rigidity has fostered polarization instead of unity.

While the right to vote remains crucial, it is increasingly insufficient on its own to address today’s complex issues. Our society is more interconnected than ever before, yet our political systems remain isolated, too often removed from the lived experiences of the people they serve. Voting, in this sense, becomes a blunt instrument—effective in expressing broad support but inadequate in addressing specific needs. This isn’t just a critique of American democracy, either; it’s a reality for democracies around the world that are struggling to respond to rapid social, technological, and environmental changes.

So, if voting isn’t enough, what is? The solution, I believe, lies in creating new forms of engagement that go beyond periodic elections. We need a system that allows for ongoing participation, where citizens have a real say in the issues that affect their lives. This is where the concept of *Civil Democracy* comes in—a model that I’ve explored extensively and that offers a way to address these challenges. Civil Democracy is about giving people the opportunity to participate actively and continuously, allowing them to shape policy in real time. It’s not simply about voting every few years; it’s about fostering a culture of engagement, where everyone has the opportunity to contribute to the collective decision-making process.

Imagine a system where, instead of casting a single vote for a candidate who may or may not reflect your views on every issue, you have the ability to influence decisions as they arise. Imagine being able to trust not just one representative but a diverse range of actors—local community leaders, experts, and advocates—who can participate alongside you in shaping policy. Civil Democracy embodies this vision by emphasizing two core principles: *meta-decision freedom*, where citizens can decide how they want to be involved in each decision, and *actor openness*, which allows citizens to choose trusted representatives for specific issues.

This is the kind of democracy that can meet today’s challenges. It addresses not just who holds power, but how power is exercised. In a Civil Democracy, we are not forced to limit our participation to a single, sweeping vote. Instead, we can contribute where we feel most informed, draw upon the knowledge and experience of others, and collectively work toward solutions. This is a model that can adapt to modern life, where people are busy but still care deeply about the decisions being made on their behalf.

The rise of Trump and other political figures who claim to “speak for the people” is a symptom of a broader crisis—a crisis that won’t be solved by simply casting another ballot. People want to feel that their voices matter. They want a system that reflects the complexities of modern life, where their input can be nuanced, flexible, and specific to the issues that matter most to them.

But first, we must recognize that voting, while powerful, is only the beginning. It’s essential, yes, but on its own, it cannot address the deeper structural issues that plague our democracies. Our task is to create a system that empowers people to engage with democracy continuously and meaningfully. We need to reclaim our sense of agency, not just through the act of voting but by building a democracy that responds to our needs, adapts to our realities, and allows us to take an active role in shaping our future.

So, I ask again: Is casting a vote enough? Honestly, I don’t think so. It is time for us to take responsibility, not just for choosing leaders, but many more things, and through doing so, for the very democracy we live in. In the next part of this series, we’ll dig deeper into how many feel disillusioned with the current system—and get first ideas what can be done to restore trust in democracy.