Explosive potential lurks in low turnout

Why were there fewer polling stations than usual in the state elections in May? Could this have contributed to the extremely low voter turnout? The SPD recently wanted to know this from the Ministry of the Interior.

Explosive potential lurks in low turnout

Why were there fewer polling stations than usual in the state elections in May? Could this have contributed to the extremely low voter turnout? The SPD recently wanted to know this from the Ministry of the Interior. The latter countered that although the number of bars had fallen, more people had voted by letter, which meant that fewer bars were needed. Whatever the case, one thing is certain: anything that could increase voter turnout must be tried. Because the minus record in May, when almost half the electorate went on strike with 45 percent, is a burden for our democracy - even if governments continue to form.

For at least two reasons, a blanket attitude would be devastating. First, how many solvable problems in hot spots remain unsolved because those who suffer fail to pressure decision-makers by voting? It's not as if voter turnout shrank equally across all classes.

In neighborhoods with many wealthy and educated people, it remains at 70 to 80 percent. It is in the districts of low-income, unemployed, single parents and those with few educational backgrounds that only every fourth person makes use of the basic democratic right. This triggers a vicious circle: as the Böckler Foundation has researched, the lack of opportunities paralyzes the will to participate in politics. Consequently, the focus population does not articulate their concerns. The pressure on politicians to address their concerns therefore remains weak. And unresolved problems continue to cripple.

Second, there is explosive potential lurking in neighborhoods where just 20 percent are still voting. What if the majority there votes again one day – but mobilized by seducers, such as German or Turkish right-wing extremists? That would be a democratic awakening, but above all a bad one. That's why constitutional parties have a double task: They have to win these neighborhoods for democratic suffrage and at the same time for democratic parties.

In theory, how this could succeed is quite undisputed: on the one hand, it strengthens the sense of belonging in both long-established residents and immigrants if they and their children are helped - out of long-term unemployment or family overwhelm, into a career with a rising star through good education in small ones classes for example. On the other hand, migrants in particular, as one of the largest non-voter groups, should be encouraged to get involved in politics, for example by politicians with an immigrant background in democratic parties. The aim of a culturally colorful politics is therefore not identity-political whimsy. And good social policy for disadvantaged neighborhoods is by no means social romanticism. Both are service to democracy.