Democracy wants more than elections
The 2026 Democracy Monitor shows that most people in Germany want to retain representative democracy – but they also want to be meaningfully involved between elections. The Belgian historian David Van Reybrouck goes further. He considers a democracy that relies almost exclusively on elections to be historically narrow and advocates permanent citizens’ assemblies and political bodies selected by lot. Read together, the survey and the interview raise a surprisingly clear question: Is our democracy too focused on election day?
The population wants a say
Germany is not tired of democracy. At least not in the sense that a majority of people are turning away from it. Instead, the University of Hohenheim’s 2026 Democracy Monitor paints a picture of a population that wants a say – but is by no means calling for parliaments to become obsolete.
Almost two-thirds of respondents prefer a representative democracy in which elected politicians make the decisions, but first engage in serious dialogue with the public and take citizens’ recommendations into account. Only a small minority want representative democracy without such an exchange. Around 30 percent favour forms of direct democracy.
Elections are not enough
Frank Brettschneider, a political scientist at the University of Hohenheim, sums up the finding as follows: “Citizens do not necessarily want to make the decisions themselves. But they do want to be informed transparently and reliably and to have a say.”
At almost the same time, David Van Reybrouck offers a more radical diagnosis in an interview with Die Zeit. The Belgian historian and writer considers it a historical mistake to equate democracy almost entirely with elections. “Elections are and remain important,” he says, “but a democracy should not be limited to them.” Today’s representative democracy is merely “one variant among many”.
Van Reybrouck points out that, throughout its long history, democracy has by no means always been organised primarily through elections. In ancient Athens, numerous public offices were allocated by lot. Elections, by contrast, long tended to serve the purpose of selecting a social elite. In modern democracy, equality and voting rights eventually became fused – to such an extent that alternatives have become almost unimaginable.
Having a say without having to govern
The Democracy Monitor does not confirm this historical thesis. It examines neither sortition nor political chambers whose members are selected by lot. But its findings suggest that a considerable proportion of the population is dissatisfied with a democracy in which political participation is largely reduced to elections.
This is precisely where the connection with citizens’ assemblies lies. A citizens’ assembly does not alter representative democracy by taking decision-making power away from parliament. Its members are selected by lot, ideally in a way that reflects different groups within society. They receive information, hear from a range of experts, deliberate together and formulate recommendations. The final decisions can still be made by elected politicians.
That corresponds remarkably closely to the model of democracy that receives the greatest support in the Hohenheim Democracy Monitor: politicians decide – but first they listen seriously.
Not everyone has to take part
Brettschneider identifies three conditions for people to participate in politics: “They must want to, they must be able to, and they must be asked.”
In a citizens’ assembly, the last part is taken literally. People do not have to volunteer for a public participation event. They are selected by lot and invited to take part.
The Democracy Monitor also shows why this can matter. While 87 percent of respondents consider opportunities for dialogue-based participation important at the municipal level, the figure is 74 percent at state level and 67 percent at federal level. Yet only 40 percent say they themselves would be willing to participate actively in such processes. Another 40 percent do not want to take part themselves but do want to be kept informed about the process. Twenty percent are not interested.
Sortition changes who sits at the table
For open participation processes, this creates a familiar problem. Who actually turns up at an event? Who submits a statement? Who joins a public discussion? Often, it is people who are already politically interested, have the necessary time and are confident in representing their interests.
Sortition addresses precisely this problem. It does not require everyone to participate. Instead, it seeks to assemble a small group that reflects the diversity of society and can deliberate on its behalf.
Van Reybrouck, however, wants to take this principle considerably further than most German citizens’ assemblies do. In the Die Zeit interview, he describes a model he has advocated for years: a bicameral system in which one chamber continues to be elected while the other is selected by lot. Members of the randomly selected chamber would be paid for their work, hear from experts and deliberate on political questions.
Van Reybrouck’s experiment
Part of this idea is already being tested in practice in East Belgium. A permanent citizens’ council has existed there since 2019. In the permanent Citizens' Dialogue, randomly selected ditizens choose issues that are subsequently considered in greater depth by citizens’ assemblies whose members are likewise selected by lot.
Van Reybrouck calls this model a “gold standard” in the interview. As an example, he points to care for older people. Even before the coronavirus pandemic, a randomly selected citizens’ assembly had put problems in care homes on the political agenda. Its recommendations included better pay for care staff. According to Van Reybrouck, the government subsequently increased wages in the care sector by an average of twelve percent.
When it comes to the question of power, however, lessons have been learned, Van Reybrouck says. Randomly selected citizens should not have to focus too heavily on questions of power. The East Belgian model therefore distinguishes between a citizens’ council that works over a longer period and temporary citizens’ assemblies that address individual issues. Politicians are required to respond to the recommendations and explain any rejection.
The Democracy Monitor is less radical
According to the Hohenheim data, however, people in Germany do not go that far. The strongest demand is not for elected parliaments to be abolished or weakened. Almost two-thirds want to retain representative democracy. They simply want politicians to listen before important decisions are made and to take recommendations from the public into account.
This initially points more towards citizens’ assemblies as a complement to parliamentary democracy than towards a second parliamentary chamber selected by lot.
That is precisely what makes the comparison interesting. Van Reybrouck poses the fundamental institutional question: Why should political representation be organised almost exclusively through elections? The Democracy Monitor poses a more practical one: Why are there so few opportunities to have a meaningful say between those elections?
Trust does not arise from participation alone
Both questions lead to the same place – the long stretch between two election days.
Yet simply inviting people to participate is not enough. The Democracy Monitor shows how strongly experiences of participation can affect trust in political institutions. Thirty-nine percent of respondents say they have taken part in at least one participation process during the past ten years. Forty-two percent were satisfied with the way it was conducted, while 22 percent were dissatisfied. When it came to the outcome, however, only 34 percent were satisfied and 32 percent dissatisfied.
Those who evaluate both the process and its outcome positively also have greater trust in municipal institutions. Those who have had negative experiences are also more dissatisfied with the functioning of local democracy.
Politicians have to respond
“Successful dialogue processes increase trust in the political institutions involved,” says Brettschneider. “They strengthen representative democracy.”
The crucial word here is: successful. For citizens’ assemblies, this leads to a simple but far-reaching conclusion. It is not enough to select people by lot, provide them with good information and listen to them over several weekends. Afterwards, they must be able to see what happens to their recommendations.
This is precisely where the East Belgian model becomes interesting. Politicians there have to respond. They can reject recommendations, but they must explain why. In the interview, Van Reybrouck describes an institutionalised obligation to respond: the government or parliament should not simply receive recommendations and then remain silent.
Binding procedures do not mean mandatory implementation
This creates an important distinction between binding political decisions and a binding obligation to respond. Not every recommendation made by a citizens’ assembly has to become law. But every recommendation should receive a comprehensible political response.
The Democracy Monitor in particular suggests how important this is. Participation does not automatically strengthen trust. Poorly designed participation can just as easily produce disappointment.
Van Reybrouck’s model offers an institutional answer: if citizens are asked to contribute their time, attention and political judgement, politicians must subsequently engage with the results.
“Part of the Zalando culture”
Van Reybrouck uses a provocative image to describe his unease with today’s electoral democracy. Voting, he argues, has turned into a form of political consumerism and become “part of the Zalando culture”. Citizens order political offerings, send them back and choose something else next time. Politicians, he argues, therefore find it increasingly difficult to ask people to accept burdens or make long-term sacrifices.
The Democracy Monitor, however, can also be read as an objection to this pessimistic description. The great majority are not merely demanding a more convenient political product. They want to be involved.
Eighty-seven percent consider dialogue-based participation important at the municipal level. Even at the federal level, the figure is still two-thirds. That sounds less like political shopping than a desire for a different role: not merely to be a voter, but to be a citizen.
A different kind of political work
Citizens’ assemblies also differ from votes that simply offer a choice between yes and no. Their participants have to engage with arguments, listen to others and often work through competing interests and difficult trade-offs.
That can be demanding. It is the opposite of democracy modelled on a quick purchase.
Van Reybrouck’s criticism therefore ultimately targets a political culture in which democratic participation is too heavily concentrated on the individual act of voting. At the same time, the Democracy Monitor shows that many people would be willing to go beyond that – provided participation is transparent, reliable and taken seriously.
More than the right to vote
At the end of the Die Zeit interview, Van Reybrouck makes an accusation that reaches far beyond citizens’ assemblies. Democracies, he argues, have assumed for too long that they would simply function by themselves. Too little “energy, research, courage and money” has been invested in their resilience and renewal.
The 2026 Democracy Monitor provides a remarkable counterpoint to the familiar narrative of a politically disenchanted population. Most people do not want out of democracy. Many want to go deeper into it.
They want to elect politicians. They want to be informed. They want to be heard. A substantial proportion would even be willing to devote their own time to political deliberation.
What happens between elections?
Citizens’ assemblies cannot solve every problem facing democracy. They do not eliminate political conflict or mistrust, nor do they guarantee better decisions.
But they address a question raised both by Brettschneider’s figures and by Van Reybrouck’s criticism: What actually happens to democracy between elections?
Perhaps that is their most important strength. They do not replace voting. They remind us that democracy can be more than voting.