Wir2030

This post is also available in:

Explanation and justification

The true maturity of a state is not shown in the applause of the majority,
but in how it deals with the dissent of the minority.

Approval is comfortable, predictable, controllable.
But criticism is uncomfortable, unpredictable – and therefore valuable.

Criticism is not an attack, but an early warning system.
A state that suppresses criticism deletes its own sensors.
It becomes blind to mistakes, deaf to warnings and incapable of correction.
The end result is not stability – but ossified power, surrounded by fear, opportunism and silence.

The dignity of the state does not lie in its assertiveness – but in its ability to take criticism.

A democratic state needs the critical voice like the body needs the immune system.
Not every reaction is pleasant – but without it, the whole thing dies of self-poisoning.

What a bad state does

A bad state recognizes a threat in every criticism – and reacts with an instinct for power instead of maturity.
It confuses loyalty with submission, and truth with allegiance.

Typical symptoms:

• Critics are defamed as radicals, swearers or enemies of democracy
• Protest is criminalized, delegitimized, controlled or destroyed
• Professional livelihoods are destroyed – for example through dismissals, withdrawal of licenses or character assassination
• Media counter-narratives are censored, algorithmically suppressed or monopolized by “fact-checkers”
• Loyalty to the government is placed above loyalty to the constitution
• Law is applied selectively, depending on who claims it

The result is not a constitutional state – but a power state.
And power states only know two types of people:
The compliant – and the suspects.

What a good state recognizes

A good state recognizes:

• Criticism is not an attack, but a resource.
• Protest is not a risk, but an expression of sovereignty.
• Contradiction is not a security problem, but a protective mechanism against abuse of power.
• Freedom of expression is not an emergency right – it is a fundamental foundation of democracy.

Those who can criticize openly do not have to rebel in secret.
Those who are heard do not resort to despair.
Those who are allowed to protect do not have to destroy.

A state that protects its critics not only protects them –
it also protects itself – from corruption, from megalomania, from moral decay.

Why the fear of criticism is growing

In times of polarization, criticism is more and more quickly interpreted as hostility.
The fear of losing control drives those in power to stop criticism before it has an effect.
But this is precisely where the danger lies:

• Where criticism is ostracized, resentment secretly grows
• Where dissent is suppressed, ideological stagnation arises
• Where protest is persecuted, radicalization develops – not through content, but through isolation

Suppressing criticism does not make a society safer – it makes it more unstable.
It creates a climate of fear, self-doubt and intellectual numbness.

A modern constitutional state must learn to integrate criticism – not fight it.

This requires clear mechanisms:

• Legal protection for whistleblowers, dissidents and non-conformists
• Unrestricted freedom of the press, including for opposition or system-critical media
• Public forums where real debate is possible – without cancel culture and moral sanctions
• Transparent decision-making processes that make citizens participants rather than spectators

Critics belong in crisis teams – not on the sidelines.
A truly democratic state must systematically include dissenting opinions,
especially in times of uncertainty and crisis.

This means:

• There must be mandatory places for dissenting votes in crisis teams, committees and expert panels
• Critics must have the right to express their opinions in the public media
• If requested, they must also be given the opportunity to be heard in parliaments – for example in the Bundestag
• Plurality must not merely be asserted, but institutionally guaranteed

Because truth does not emerge from consensus, but from conflict.
And clarity only emerges where arguments can meet.

Our position

We2030 says:

• The quality of a state is not reflected in its approval – but in the way it deals with criticism.
• A state that protects its critics also protects the corrective that keeps it democratic.
• The duty to protect dissenting opinions – even against social pressure – is a touchstone of political maturity.
• Only where dissent is possible can real consensus emerge.
• Power is only limited where dissent is protected.
• Only where there is room for criticism is there hope for justice.

A good state protects its critics – not its power.
Those who reverse this rule – but do not deserve to rule.