Democracy as Sacred Monstrance
On actually existing democracy
Prompt from Hans Ley: The democracy that has nothing to do with real democracy — the "actually existing democracy." It will not fail because of its enemies, but because of its apologists. True democracy must have a learning-capable and dynamic structure. Everything rigid degenerates and decays inevitably.
— Claude turned this into the following text.
The monstrance is a liturgical vessel. In it, the host is displayed for adoration. The faithful bow. What is in the monstrance is not examined — that would be blasphemy. The vessel itself has become sacred.
This is how democracy functions in Germany.
Actually Existing Democracy
The term is a deliberate parallel. "Actually existing socialism" — that's what the GDR called its system, to distinguish it from what socialism was actually supposed to be. Reality as an excuse for the betrayal of the ideal.
Actually existing democracy works similarly. It invokes democratic principles while systematically hollowing them out. Not through coup or dictatorship — through ossification.
Every four years we go to vote. That is the liturgy. We drop our ballot in the slot like a coin in the collection box. Then we go home and the real work begins — in ministries, committees, councils. Staffed by people no one elected.
The Ritual Replaces the Content
Democracy means: The people rule. In practice it means: The people elect representatives who make decisions prepared by apparatuses that are controlled by no one.
The deputy votes on laws he did not write and often does not understand. The drafts come from the ministries. The ministries are staffed with civil servants who write their own rules. The minister signs. Then he's gone. The civil servants remain.
This is not a conspiracy. This is structure.
The Apologists
Democracy will not fail because of its enemies. The AfD is not the danger. Autocrats are not the danger. The danger is the apologists — the defenders of the status quo.
They respond to every criticism of the system with the accusation that one is attacking democracy itself. Anyone who asks whether our institutions still function is an enemy of democracy. Anyone who doubts that making a cross every four years is enough plays into the hands of populists.
This immunization against criticism is the real problem. It prevents any adaptation, any learning, any development. It cements precisely the ossification that hollows out the system from within.
The apologist confuses the monstrance with the host. He defends the vessel while the content has long since spoiled.
The Law of Ossification
Everything rigid degenerates. This is not a political statement — it is thermodynamics applied to institutions.
Living systems adapt. They learn. They correct errors. They evolve. Dead systems repeat themselves. They defend processes instead of outcomes. They measure success by compliance with rules, not by the solution of problems.
Actually existing democracy is a dead system pretending to be alive. The elections are the heartbeat of a corpse, artificially maintained.
What True Democracy Would Need
True democracy would be capable of learning. It would have institutions that can question themselves. Mechanisms that detect and dissolve ossification. Feedback loops between decision and effect.
None of this exists.
Instead we have: Constitutional courts that review laws, but not the question of whether laws are even the right instrument. Audit offices that check whether money was spent correctly, but not whether it was spent sensibly. Evaluations that measure what is measurable, not what is important.
The system optimizes itself — for self-preservation, not for function.
The Forbidden Question
There are questions one may not ask. Not because they are forbidden — but because they are unthinkable.
For example: What if elections alone are not enough? What if representative democracy is a model that worked in the 18th century but reaches its limits in the 21st? What if we don't need less democracy, but different democracy?
Anyone who asks these questions is immediately categorized: Populist. Enemy of democracy. Extremist. The categorization replaces the engagement.
Yet these are precisely the questions a living democracy would have to constantly ask itself.
The Decay
Systems that do not adapt decay. Not suddenly, not dramatically — gradually. The form remains preserved, the content erodes. Eventually only the shell is left.
This is the state of actually existing democracy. We still have elections, still parliaments, still parties. But the decisions are made elsewhere. Power lies with those whom no one elected and whom no one can vote out.
And anyone who says this is attacking democracy.
The monstrance will continue to be carried through the streets. The faithful will continue to bow. But fewer and fewer believe there is anything in it anymore. And those who shout "Democracy!" the loudest are often the ones least willing to practice it.
True democracy would be uncomfortable. It would mean: constant questioning, constant adaptation, constant conflict. The opposite of what we have — ritualized consent to decisions that have long since been made.
The apologists will read this as an attack. That is their right. It is also the proof of the thesis.