There is a dangerous myth about democracy that slowness has an eigenvalue. The slow movement is an initiative that advocates for a slower pace of modern life. It encourages individuals to embrace a more thoughtful and deliberate approach. It was an offshoot of the slow food movement, which began in 1986 as a protest against fast food. The trend was extended by slow running, slow living, slow thinking, slow… anything. Recently, the book Slow Democracy was published as another piece in the slow movement puzzle.
A Warning from Physicists and Economists
Stress is unhealthy, but so is slow decision-making. The world is spinning faster than ever. From artificial intelligence to climate change, the challenges we face demand fast, efficient, and intelligent responses. Yet our democratic systems, especially in Europe, struggle with monumental inertia.
The biggest problem with our old welfare states is that they act too slowly. German physicist Sabine Hossenfelder recently made a YouTube video about it. This inertia, she argues, is the driving force behind the global trend towards authoritarian regimes. Authoritarians promise (and sometimes deliver) faster decisions. We must find a way to increase the pace of democratic decision-making dramatically. Otherwise, we risk seeing more and more countries turn away from democracy.
Mario Draghi’s Despondent Cry
This warning echoes the frustration felt by Europe’s most prominent economists Mario Draghi, former ECB president. Draghi wrote a report to the European Commission with a stark message: If nothing changes, Europe will fall behind. His solution was clear: We must speed up innovation and cut back on heavy bureaucracy. What has happened since then? According to Draghi himself: Nothing. He notes with resignation that “Governments do not grasp the seriousness of the situation.”
The problem is thus clear: The democratic process is too slow to deal with the challenges of the 21st century.
The consequence is that voters are turning to authoritarians who promise “quick fixes” at the cost of democracy. This should lead to an insight. Simply wishing for less bureaucracy is not enough. We must change the way we make decisions.
Decision Debt: The Price of Waiting
What is happening in politics is directly comparable to the disasters that befall companies with a slow decision-making culture. In business, it is called Decision Debt – and it is a hidden killer. Analyses from organizations like Orbii show the clear pattern. Every day an important decision is postponed, the organization incurs hidden costs. It can be market loss, missed options, or ad momentum. Just as Nokia missed the smartphone revolution due to internal disagreement and a slow executive approval process. Just as governments miss critical windows to regulate or promote new technologies.
When leadership postpones clear decisions, internal morale drops, and trust is eroded. Slow decisions create an operational standstill. Projects don’t have the necessary resources on time, teams are forced to “limp forward” under outdated structures, and bureaucracy swells. The point is: Acting slowly is not safer; it is just deferred risk. And for every day that passes, we pay interest on the political Decision Debt.
The “Value of Slowness” in Democracy is Bullshit
Many defenders of the old political order claim that “slowness has a value.” They argue that the drawn-out process is necessary to guarantee legal certainty, minority protections, and well-considered decisions. Really? Slowness can be valuable in personal life, but not in contemporary decision-making. Let’s be clear: The statement that “Slowness is valuable in Democracy” is bullshit!
What is valuable is not time, but the quality of the functions: scrutiny, transparency, and inclusion. Slowness has only been an unintended side effect of the inefficient form that our analogous institutions have had. If we can deliver better protection in a system that moves quickly, then the old inertia has no value. We must stop trying to patch together the old processes and build a model adapted for the 21st century instead.
Speed Met Quality in a new model
Peer Democracy (a form of Equal Democracy) is the solution that meets Hossenfelder and Draghi’s demands while maintaining democratic ideals. Peer Democracy turns the system on its head: Speed through Administration-Slash: We replace hierarchical bottlenecks with a distributed process. Decisions do not have to pass through dozens of committees. They are made by the relevant peers (those with the best expertise and insight) in the network. This drastically reduces administration and lowers costs, as Draghi called for.
Quality through Iteration: Review and feedback are done in parallel and lightning fast with digital tools, not sequentially over months. We get the thoughtfulness required for legal certainty, but in a faster “fail-fast, learn-fast” cycle.
No Choice Between Democracy and Efficiency: Peer Democracy is not a compromise between speed and democracy; it is the synthesis. It gives us the necessary efficiency in decision-making while reinforcing transparency and equality.
Peer Democracy: Speed without Authority
This is where Peer Democracy offers not just an improvement, but a necessary resolution. It shifts decision-making from a hierarchical and administratively heavy structure. It moves to a horizontal and distributed online process based on collaboration and transparency. By harnessing the collective intellect and digital tools, we can tackle two major problems at once:
- Dramatically Increased Decision-Making Pace
Peer Democracy literally cuts through the bureaucratic layers that Draghi complained about. As the administration shrinks, there will be no “bottlenecks”. Decisions do not have to pass through dozens of bureaucratic checkpoints, committees, and investigations.
Focused Expertise: Decisions are made by the most relevant “peers”. These are individuals with the best expertise and insight. This approach speeds up the process and increases decision quality instantly.
Reduced Administration: Fewer meetings, fewer referrals, and fewer middle managers free up time and resources. The result is efficiency. A decision that today takes a year to implement can be implemented in a few weeks or months.
- Better Decisions – Less Risk
Speed is meaningless if the decisions are bad. The strength of Equal Democracy is that it also leads to better decisions, because it includes the knowledgeable:
Decisions are made quickly, yet they rely on broader input than before. They are crafted by relevant experts in the network, and no small elite in the top has a veto.
Moreover, it has adaptability: It is designed for rapid iteration and adjustment. This is crucial in a world where technology and conditions are constantly changing.
Choose Rhythm, Not Inertia
Democracy is under threat. The threat comes not from authoritarians per se, but from our inability to respond to the present demands. Turning to autocracy is a quick fix, but a dangerous mistake. Let us choose a modern, fast rhythm – instead of the inertia that drags us into the backwaters of history.
Democracy is threatened when it is perceived as too inefficient. And Europe will fall behind if we do not accelerate innovation and reduce administration. Trying to reform the old systems with small adjustments has proven to be a failure. We must dare to change the model fundamentally.
Equal/Peer Democracy is not a compromise between speed and democracy; it is the synthesis. It gives us the necessary speed and efficiency in decision-making while strengthening transparency and equality. Our future depends on whether we can respond to the challenges with 21st-century methods. Let us unite speed, intelligence, and democracy. Our future depends on us acting now.