Any new ideas?
Trying to find political imagination in 803 pages of party programs
After the breakup of the government coalition, early elections will take place in Germany on February 23rd. The country is wavering between standstill, overregulation, and fear of a rightward shift. In their election campaigns, established politicians offer ideas for which they have already had many years, in some cases decades, to implement. The political discourse is stuck between tribe signals and tactical considerations. To orient themselves issue-wise, millions of voters use an online tool called Wahl-O-Mat, offered by the Federal Agency for Civic Education, a subordinate to the Federal Ministry of the Interior. The app poses 38 political questions, evaluates the answers, and shows which party aligns most closely with one's opinions. For many users, the results lead to a surprise, which does not prevent them from voting for the party they already feel closest to or whose leading candidates they like.
In search of fresh approaches
Many voters are frustrated that politics is going in circles. As is well known, populist movements exploit this discomfort and present themselves as vigorous restorers of common sense. Apart from the right-wing AfD, several smaller parties are running with the promise of renewal, including monothematic niche parties, the somewhat tired-looking satire party Die PARTEI, and the pan-European newcomer Volt. The latter promotes a politics of best practices, which consists of implementing exemplary solutions from various European countries such as the digitization of administration like in Estonia or mobility concepts based on Danish models. Curious by the unconventional approach, I tried to find out how much innovation is hidden in Volt’s and other parties' papers. Since election programs are a lengthy, tedious read, I turned to AI for help.
803 pages of political prose
I asked AI chatbots to review the programs of nine parties (AfD, BSW, CDU, Die Linke, Die PARTEI, FDP, GRÜNE, SPD, Volt) for fresh ideas. Together, they add up to 803 pages of campaign promises. First, I used the example of Volt to compare responses from Chat-GTP, Claude, DeepSeek, and traditional chatbots with reasoning models. Based on the results, I chose Claude 3.5. and had it review the programs of all nine parties. Here’s the prompt:
Read XYZ’s party program for the federal election and tell me what new ideas it contains. You can find the program here: [LINK TO PROGRAM]
The ideas found in the nine very diverse programs can be clustered as follows:
transformational goals such as a socio-ecological economy
educational measures such as the inclusion of Gender Studies in educational curricula
the recombination of known ideas such as reducing bureaucracy or more flexible working hours with digital technology
novel methods of citizen participation
contrarian positions.
Judge for yourself how innovative you find these ideas.
Creativity and contradictoriness
Those who talk frequently about innovation do not necessarily have the most original ideas. The often demanded strengthening of research and development does not correspond to the funding cuts made by the same parties when they are in power. Most parties rarely consider the idea that bans and obligations are not particularly creative or promising ways to achieve desirable goals. Conflicts among the proposed measures aren’t transparently addressed.
Who gets the prize for the most original idea? Well, how about the demand for a "right to an analog life" while at the same time calling for the "introduction of biometric identification for social benefits?"
The heterogeneity of the proposals shows that political imagination alone is not a sufficient criterion for making an electoral decision. For example, someone who finds Volt's best-practice idea inspiring but rejects specific measures labeled as best practice must make a trade-off just as much as someone who considers ecological transformation and a technology-friendly reduction of bureaucracy equally desirable. Unsurprisingly, my experiment clarified that countries shouldn’t rely on the political sphere to develop solutions. It is up to society – and the arts – to set imagination in motion and create new ideas.
Now what?
Whom will I give my vote to? I do not know, and I will not say it publicly either. But what I do know is that I will vote. As a citizen, and especially against the backdrop of German history, it still moves me to read Article 38 in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany:
„The members of the German Bundestag are elected in general, direct, free, equal, and secret elections. They are representatives of the whole people, not bound by mandates or instructions, and only subject to their conscience.“
New idea: getting out of the Pepsi vs. Coke mindset by stopping drinking fizzy drinks altogether, not arguing about which one is the best (or least bad). Even if the questionnaire shows 90% agreement with one party, that party will guaranteed renege on most of their claims. The AfD won't meaningfully reduce immigration, just like Trump never even tried to build the wall. It's a sham. They just care about their own power. The FPOe here in Austria could easily have most of what they ask for, but they stubbornly play power games and destroy their own chances of getting anything. Even "neutral" process parties like Volt, or Neos here in Austria, get bogged down in BS, like Neos says that their members can vote any way they want and aren't beholden to the party line--yet in Parliament they usually vote together (far left). The best choice may be NOT voting, and then you've taken a step outside of the system. Liechtenstein, UAE, El Salvador, Kazakhstan--there's a lot of interesting options out there once we start stepping away from the sacred cow of partisan politics in a "democracy."