With truth under siege, will Generation Z defend democracy or let it fade?
It was bound to happen: Donald J. Trump has made it into my lecture theatre. Generation Z is sitting in front of me—some perplexed, some speechless, some simply afraid. And then comes the question: what truths do we still hold as self-evident when lies become a shared narrative, when prejudices appear to be facts, and when hatred and anger take precedence over prudence and reflection?
In a lecture on the foundations of constitutional democracy, it is pointed out that self-evident truths are those inalienable rights that we enjoy simply because we are human beings. That is the essence of the American Declaration of Independence. A democratic constitutional state claims legitimacy because it protects these truths.
In the days following the US elections, we should take the time to reread the American Declaration of Independence. It states that political power is not justified by itself, simply because one has the means to enforce it, because one believes oneself to be legitimised by higher powers, or because one has a broad majority in society. Politics is, without exception, subject to legitimisation—and legitimisation requires argumentation. The founding fathers of the United States precisely listed the misdemeanours of the British crown to justify their resistance. Even the revolution had the power of the better, fact-based argument at its origin. One of the side effects of truth is that even arbitrariness cannot be arbitrarily asserted or criticised. Rather, an argument can only be put forward on a rational basis. It must be open to empirical refutation.
It follows from this: truth, in its liberal and rational core, is indispensable for a public sphere in which the conditions of democratic action are negotiated without prejudice and with impartiality. Truth is the essence of the democratic public sphere. Without it, democracy dies.
Unfortunately, those who took the axe to the democratic order long before the US elections also know this. They are flooding the internet with false information. They operate on digital platforms with prejudices, replacing rational judgement with defamation, and reflection with hatred. Ultimately, lies are becoming a constitutive and practically effective feature of political power. Values are turned into their opposite—perpetrators act as victims, racism appears acceptable again, and degradation becomes the norm. Freedom of expression is a modest and patient fundamental right. It has to withstand polemics and exaggeration, even half-truths. But it has limits: they lie in human dignity, in general laws, and in the continued existence of democracy itself. Anyone who breaks down these boundaries and makes lies their truth is corroding the democratic public sphere with the poison of hypocritical political power, which in the long term permeates all levels of the democratic state and open civil society—in companies, in associations, in schools and universities, in the media, and even in families and friendships.
But have we realised that democracy and freedom can no longer be taken for granted? In the world of the lecture theatre, the pragmatists of Generation Z are also speaking out. They already see economic benefits in the radical deregulation of digital markets and the El Dorado of the platform economy in artificial intelligence. The Bitcoin price is rising! Well, democracy may be disintegrating, but who cares? Clearly, a lot must have gone wrong in research and teaching, especially at universities, if Trumpism is no longer even recognised as an error in the system of democracy and the collapse of the system is condoned. If we want to shape our future together as holders of inalienable rights, something has to change. It is time to put the value and validity of democratic principles back at the centre of research and bring them back into the lecture halls as a point of reference. It’s education, stupid! Instead, the academic system is characterised by an obsession with measuring the performance of researchers and students. A real turning point is needed: let’s bring creativity and critical judgement back to life!
Both critical faculties and creativity are necessary when discussing the future challenges of artificial intelligence. The prevailing narrative is still that artificial intelligence is a growth accelerator, a job creator, and indispensable for human progress. The less regulation, the better. It would be naïve to deny that much of this narrative is true. However, it would be equally naïve to blindly trust in technological progress and the political neutrality of artificial intelligence. Generative AI in the hands of Elon Musk, available for populist power, is becoming a weapon of destruction directed against democracy. Because it creates its own truths: images that didn’t exist, avatars that only exist in our fiction, words that were never said, lies that look like truth. Machines can also learn to hate. Only responsible citizens who make use of their own minds can help counter this. Universities and schools are the training centres for critical reason, whose fitness levels indicate a need to catch up.
After all, Generation Z needs a project. Its title: Sovereign Europe. It would be the answer to the feeling of loss of control that has spread in the face of the crises of recent years—climate, peace, migration. National politics has abdicated responsibility in the management of these crises. In contrast, populist politics offers recipes from the mustiness of the 1950s, albeit highly polished on TikTok. However, we should offer a meaningful perspective in which self-efficacy and participation can be experienced when we shape something as valuable and beautiful as a European democracy. We should have the political courage to leave the path of the EU as merely a rule-maker. Instead, let us develop Europe’s institutions in the direction of a European res publica. This will not happen by itself but must be exemplified and jointly devised.
It may be a long way from the lecture theatre discussion back to life. Nothing can be taken for granted if we do not succeed in communicating that constitutional democracy is a valuable treasure that we should not lose under any circumstances.
Stefan Braum is Professor of Criminal Law at the University of Luxembourg.