What makes the voters of Germany’s most popular party, the Alternative for Germany (AfD), tick?

Here are the results of a representative survey on democracy conducted by the polling institute Allensbach (Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach):

“Only a minority of the population—but 69 per cent of AfD sympathisers—are generally dissatisfied with the basic democratic order. While two-thirds of the population consider democracy the best form of government, only 37 per cent of AfD supporters share this view. The majority of the population is convinced that the country’s problems can be solved within the framework of the democratic order, whereas only 23 per cent of AfD supporters believe this.”1

Shocking, isn’t it?

See you in Democracy,

Johannes Eber

The biggest problem in major German cities (and not just in Germany)?

The housing shortage.

Rents are rising. People are being forced out of their homes.

Last weekend, the Left Party (Die Linke) won the election in Berlin on this very issue. Elif Eralp is likely to become the next Governing Mayor. How does she plan to solve the housing problem? Through stricter monitoring of abuses, rent caps, and the state buying up private housing—so-called socialisation. That helps alleviate symptoms. It does not solve the problem.

It is a tragedy—the fact that the city’s biggest problem likely won’t be tackled adequately.

Indeed, it hasn’t been addressed sufficiently for a long time. If the core of the problem is the housing shortage, then the solution is more housing. Given its simplicity, that might sound like populism. But it is simply the principle of supply and demand.

Yes, it is true: people’s preferences—and consequently the influx into metropolitan areas—change faster than construction projects can be completed to accommodate them fully. But is Berlin’s current level of construction really all that was possible? Shouldn’t we have thought differently? Bigger? Much bigger? What if the tens of billions of euros that taxpayers (likely future ones, given the debt financing) will have to cough up to socialise Berlin’s housing were instead invested in the future? What if, for instance, we started today to develop a new residential area for a million people? With lightning-fast transport links—getting to the city centre in 15 minutes.

What if a party had campaigned on this idea? Not bulldozing allotment gardens for new housing. Not building on the recreational area Tempelhofer Feld. Not working against resistance. Not a case of “giving something up so that...”, but rather “creating something new for the better—for everyone.” It would have combined the necessary task of addressing immediate symptoms with a bold, sweeping initiative—a promise that anyone could understand. A promise backed by the well-founded prospect of overcoming Berlin’s biggest contemporary problem.

Perhaps The Left would have garnered a few percentage points less with their conservative approach last Sunday. Perhaps we could still confront them with this idea. Perhaps there is still a slim chance that, in this wonderful city, mere administration can give way to growth.

See you in Democracy

Johannes Eber

Friend of Democracy,

There are two parties in Berlin that, during the campaign for the weekend’s House of Representatives election (Abgeordnetenhauswahl), consciously opted against populism—focusing instead on calm, deliberation, positive messages, debate, and a matter-of-fact approach:

- Alliance 90/The Greens Berlin, with lead candidates Werner Graf and Bettina Jarasch, and
- Volt Berlin, with Anna Auerbach and Paul Loeper.

The results are sobering.

The Greens dropped 4.1 percentage points, finishing with just 14.3 per cent. The young party Volt managed a meagre 2.1 per cent.

The winners were, above all, the loud voices, the polarisers, the doom-mongers, and the truth-benders.

This is the defining characteristic of our time: digitalisation has not only created space for parties and movements aiming to capture the votes of those disengaged from politics; it has also made it easy for these political players, because social media algorithms amplify their specific style of communication.

The result: populist and extremist platforms are gaining enough support to command majorities in parliaments, while well-reasoned, sensible policy proposals are relegated to the fringes. Voters are opting for the sensational.

Can democracy withstand this? It would not be the first time that democracy met its end through democratic means. Yet, it would also not be the first time that people voted populists and extremists out of office.

How the tide turns depends, in large part, on those working to ensure that a majority of the public becomes resilient to the allure of simple answers. The Greens and Volt are doing a great deal in this regard. But it is not enough. The parties cannot do it alone; it requires all of civil society. The weekend’s election is proof of this.

See you in Democracy,

Johannes Eber

Politicians in government regularly face a dilemma regarding social policy. If they help only those in need, the vast majority sees no benefit and punishes the policymakers at the ballot box. If they help everyone, costs skyrocket and the welfare state becomes unstable.

The current debate in Germany over the “pension at 63“1 (Rente mit 63) serves as a prime example of this. The government had actually agreed to abolish it. Too expensive. Too many people are leaving the labor market too early. Not a good idea in times of demographic change. But the resistance is enormous. What would make sense: Allowing people to stop working before the standard retirement age—largely without pension deductions—would be right and important for those who can no longer work. But only a minority would actually benefit from that.

The same applies to the fuel dicount2 (Tankrabatt): instead of providing relief to those hit hardest by high petrol prices, the government is once again distributing aid indiscriminately. The result is twofold: first, the per-capita relief is negligible (an average of €10.70 per household per month, at a cost to the state of €440 million per month); and second, only a fraction of the aid reaches those who actually need it (only €8.40 of every €100 in fuel rebates goes to households classified as “energy poor”—meaning they must spend an above-average share of their income on energy). Furthermore, the fuel rebate drives up demand for petrol by two percent—a counterproductive outcome at a time when fuel supplies are tight. (These figures come from Aaron Praktiknjo, Professor of Energy System Economics.)

Clearly, relief measures that are economically efficient and socially targeted would look different. But as mentioned, government policy regularly faces a dilemma here: if the majority does not benefit, the government is punished for it.

What would you do as a politician?

See you in Democracy,

Johannes Eber

Friend of Democracy,

For far too long, the communication strategy of numerous German lobbyists consisted of talking everything down. Trade unions railed against painful yet necessary reforms; the employers’ lobby predicted the ruin of the German economy, the welfare state, and the government itself (as shown in the image above: “Welfare state even more broken than thought”). The prevailing mantra from many people and organisations was that everything was going down the drain. Eventually, most Germans came to believe it—that everything was indeed going to ruin. And journalists, at times, played along, too—because the more dramatic the story, the more clicks it generated.

Extremists and populists absorbed this narrative and turned it into votes.

Now, after the election in the German state of Saxony-Anhalt and the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD )’s success there, no one wants to take responsibility. Everyone is calling for consequences, insisting that things cannot go on like this. Yet, everyone could have started with themselves—and still can. By refraining from disparaging rhetoric. By banishing the populist narrative of Germany’s decline to the “toxic waste” bin of lobbyist communications. By avoiding sweeping generalisations and defamatory language. By showing respect despite differences in substance and conflicting interests. By shifting the narrative from “Everything will get much worse unless...” to “Everything will get better if...” Perhaps it is not yet too late for such a narrative—like the one found on a recent campaign poster from the party Volt for the upcoming Berlin state election on September 20 (spotted, for instance, by Viktoria Schütz; see photo below): that the economy is built on courage.

See you in Democracy,

Johannes

If people are increasingly turning to AI for information, and if AI companies continue not to pay those who collect, evaluate, and publish Information, then, sooner or later, there will be no solid information anymore.

Simply because trustworthy information will no longer be produced. Can’t be produced anymore. Because there is no one to pay for.

(By the way, the problem is exacerbated by social media platforms. Because the algorithm there is optimised to keep people coming back for more, consumers no longer go directly to news sites.)

So AI is killing trustworthy information; it systematically produces more disinformation and less truth.

This is how the market works today.

The winners: Digital platforms, as well as the misinformation producers that flood the internet with cheap AI-generated content and profit from engagement.

The losers: Quality news, public-interest journalism, and the public that depends on them.

But democracy needs informed citizens, right?

So what to do?

We have to change the rules of the market.

As the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and his Columbia University colleague Maxim Ventura-Bolet have written in a paper called (The impact of AI and digital platforms on the information ecosystem) we don’t have to accept this situation.

But: The market will not self-correct because nobody is incentivised to act differently.

Only government intervention can stop the downward spiral.

Stiglitz and Ventura-Bolet argue that this should include

• regulated platform accountability for content amplification,

• enforced obligations to address coordinated disinformation campaigns, and

• intellectual-property protection for news producers.

Today, the information landscape is becoming increasingly polluted, fragmented, and manipulative.

This is the bad news.

The good news: We can change for the better. With better rules for information markets.

Some will warn against interventions in free markets. Others simply term such helpful regulations a social market economy.

See you in democracy,

Johannes Eber

If you don’t want to read the Stiglitz & Ventura-Bolet paper, Meg Tapia has written about the paper here. Tapia is the managing director of the national security consulting firm Novexus and an expert associate at the Australian National University’s National Security College.

Friend of Democracy,

Which policies matter to supporters of which parties in Germany? What do centre-right voters of the ruling CDU party want? And what about those of the Social Democratic Party (SPD)? What are the priorities of supporters of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, parts of which are far-right?

The economists Tobias Börger, Tim Lohse, Jürgen Meyerhoff, Salmai Qari and Andreas Stotland have investigated this question (paper available only in German) using a representative, survey-based choice experiment employing so-called best-worst scaling.

In this best-worst scaling method, participants are asked to repeatedly select what they consider to be the best and worst options from an experimentally generated list of alternatives. Consistent rankings can be derived from these repeated choices, enabling the quantification of relative preferences.

Participants could choose from 13 policy areas:

1 Education & Research (Bildung & Forschung)
2 Energy supply (Energieversorgung)
3 Food & Agriculture (Ernährung & Landwirtschaft)
4 Health & Care (Gesundheit & Pflege)
5 Infrastructure & Transport (Infrastruktur & Verkehr)
6 Home security (Innere Sicherheit)
7 Climate action (Klimaschutz)
8 Culture (Kultur)
9 Nature conservation and environmental protection (Natur- und Umweltschutz)
10 Pensions (Rente)
11 Social security benefits (Sozialleistungen)
12 Defence (Verteidigung)
13 Economy (Wirtschaft)

The results of the experiment are shown in the chart above.

Two key findings:

1. The importance citizens attach to different policy areas depends heavily on their party preference.

2. Policy areas that attract a great deal of public and media attention (such as defence and climate action) often do not feature prominently in the priority lists of individual voter groups.

The authors conclude:

“The analysis suggests that the government’s priorities do not necessarily align with the relative spending priorities of its own voter groups. This is particularly relevant where political strategies rely on significant shifts in resources or increases in spending, such as in the policy areas of defence and climate protection, which are considered of secondary importance by large sections of the electorate. Such discrepancies can heighten political disillusionment, weaken loyalty to established parties and thereby boost the appeal of opposition parties and, in particular, political fringe groups.”

So far for today.

See you in Democracy,

Johannes Eber

Friend of Democracy,

What comes to mind when you think of Europe?

It stands for so many things. So much good. And so much bad. For the Enlightenment. For inventions. Conquest. Colonisation. Extermination. Also for democracy.

Today, 9 May, is Europe Day.

It commemorates the 1950 Schuman Declaration, when French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman proposed pooling European coal and steel production — the proposal that became the foundation of today’s European Union. It’s celebrated annually across the EU with open-door events at EU institutions, concerts, and civic activities.

How are you spending Europe Day?

Among other things, I was at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin and attended an event organised by Pulse of Europe.

Let’s get out and make our voices heard.

Long live democratic Europe!

See you in Democracy,

Johannes Eber

How can Germany maintain its prosperity?

Through immigration.

Conservative circles won’t like that. But that is an economic reality.

And not only that.

Since the potential for migration from within the European Union has been exhausted, immigration will increasingly come from third countries in the future.

These are two key findings from the three economists Herbert Brücker, Yuliya Kosyakova, and Enzo Weber, published in the German academic journal Wirtschaftsdienst (which covers German economic policy and for which I work).

Here are a few more key points.

The current situation in Germany:

“Seven million – that is how many workers Germany will lose over the next 15 years due to demographic change alone. The demographic impact has been negative for many years, resulting in a loss of more than 400,000 workers per year. In reality, however, the German labour market is only just beginning to shrink. Until now, this decline has been more than offset – by rising labour force participation among older people and women; and, above all, by immigration. But these compensatory mechanisms are increasingly reaching their limits.”

The authors argue that the notion that artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly taking over tasks, and that there is therefore little need for additional workers, is a fallacy:

“Digitalisation and AI are leading to far-reaching changes in jobs and work processes, but not to a decline in overall labour demand.”

The answer, therefore, is: migration – and that applies at all levels:

“It is often overlooked that migration increases the labour supply not only at the lower end of the skills spectrum, but also at the upper end. Depending on the period under review, the proportion of graduates among immigrants in Germany is just as high, or even higher, than in the population without a migrant background. This potential can be further strengthened, for example, through targeted support for international students and measures to encourage graduates to remain in the country.”

By the way: migration fosters innovation. To quote Brücker, Kosyakova and Weber one last time:

“Numerous studies show that migration and diversity boost productivity growth. Innovation often arises where knowledge from different contexts is brought together – a process that is fostered by migration.”

So, this article brings together two favourite topics in current German politics: migration and growth. However, the connection is not quite as some on the conservative side see it. But it is an economic fact: Migration and growth are often two sides of the same coin.

See you in Democracy,

Johannes Eber

Friend of Democracy,

Across Germany, the current refrain is this: The Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz isn’t up to the job. The loudest voices are coming from the conservative camp—not least from within his own centre-right party, the CDU itself. We supported Merz; we gave him at least a fair chance, these critics argue. But now, they say, it has become clear that Merz is no reformer. Sure, the blame lies primarily with the coalition partner—the Social Democrats (SPD)—whose political vision renders them incapable of pulling the country out of the mire, they say, yet it also lies with Friedrich Merz, who is failing to keep the SPD in check.

This is the story being told by the conservative side: The “cart of Germany” is stuck in the mud, and Merz is not the right man to pull it out.

Some on the right side of the political spectrum may have only recently embraced this notion. Others, however, have been cultivating this narrative since the government’s inception. It is a narrative with a distant and clear objective: to pave the way for a right-wing conservative majority government. A very right-wing conservative government. Those within the CDU who pursue this goal do not say so openly—not yet, at least. For now, it remains a political taboo. Consequently, they are working to engineer a political climate in which such a constellation becomes the only viable path to power for the Union.

It appears that these people are well on their way to success. The governing CDU is currently doing a lot (through disputes with the coalition partner) to ensure the failure of the existing coalition, or, at the very least, to make a renewed coalition with the Social Democrats impossible following the next federal election. But with whom, then, could the CDU form a coalition? With the Greens? With the Left Party? With the Liberals (FDP), which is currently sinking into political irrelevance?

If the CDU continues on this path, only one potential coalition partner will remain: the Alternative for Germany (AfD)—a party that is, in part, openly right-wing extremist. That is the goal of some—and, I fear, of quite a few—within and around the Merz party. Then the argument will be that power cannot be left in the hands of the cranks to the left of centre; that, for the sake of the country’s future, one must bite the bullet and agree to cooperate with the AfD.

Friedrich Merz will, in all likelihood, not lead such a coalition as Federal Chancellor. He has decency. I just heard on the news that the AfD’s poll numbers in Saxony-Anhalt have risen once again. It is possible that the Union will no longer have to concern itself with the question of who, from within its own ranks, is to succeed Friedrich Merz as German Federal Chancellor.

See you in Democracy,

Johannes Eber

Do you know Abiy Ahmed?

He has been the Prime Minister of Ethiopia since April 2018.

In 2018, shortly after taking office, he released political prisoners, allowed exiled opposition groups to return, opened up media restrictions, and made peace with neighbouring Eritrea after decades of hostility.

For his peace agreement with Isaias Afwerki of Eritrea, he even received the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize.

And after that?

His leadership became highly controversial due to the Tigray conflict (2020–2022) — a devastating civil war between the federal government and the Tigray regional authorities. There are also accusations of human rights violations, and there are ongoing ethnic tensions across Ethiopia, plus economic difficulties and inflation.

Ethiopia has become much more politically restrictive in recent years compared to the optimism of 2018.

Obviously, Abiy Ahmed is far less a friend of democracy than he seemed to be.

This is a common pattern, isn‘t it? Friends of freedom and democracy become - when in power - the opposite.

Here is a simple rule:

Whether someone is a friend of democracy, i.e., supports the transfer of power, cannot be verified as long as they are in opposition and therefore fighting for a change in power; it can only be checked with those in power and their willingness to relinquish it.

See you in Democracy,

Johannes Eber

We can’t compare Nazi-Germany with the USA of today, can we?

Maybe we should.

Not because it’s the same. But because it could become similar.

Because people tend to be delusional. They hope things can’t go worse. They don’t recognise when things are getting worse, not when life deteriorates incrementally. Step by step.

In Germany, after the Nazi took power, most of the people thought that things would turn out well. We know it didn’t.

And in the USA of today?

Ian Buruma, author of The Colaborators, compares the situation (his father was a student in Nazi-occupied Netherlands and deported to Germany as a forced labourer) in the New York Times (gift article):

“I was told by a well-known American historian that there was really nothing to worry about, for after all, Roosevelt once had authoritarian tendencies, too. Democracy would never be shattered, a law professor assured me, for ‘Americans love freedom too much.’

Since then, one red line after another has been crossed: Undocumented immigrants are called animals; civilian boats are blown out of the water; American citizens are gunned down in the streets and then accused of being domestic terrorists; universities, news organizations and law firms are being bullied and blackmailed; and refugees are deported to countries whose languages they probably don’t even speak. And that is aside from the blatant corruption of family and cronies.

All this was incremental, too, but compared with 1934, everything goes much faster. And yet life continues as usual. What was unthinkable only yesterday we now take in stride, and we wait for that moment when things really have gone too far this time, when the fever breaks and things will revert to normal.

But that moment probably won’t come. Things have gone too far too many times already. Hoping for better is still the right attitude, but only as long as we prepare for the worst.”

See you in Democracy,

Johannes Eber

Would Putin’s Russia have invaded Ukraine (exactly four years ago) if the international community had reacted differently to Putin’s occupation of Crimea in 2014, if it had given Ukraine more support and imposed tougher sanctions on Putin after 2014?

We in Germany have a particular perspective on this issue. We have the history of a 12-year Nazi dictatorship nine decades ago.

Back then, after Hitler seized power in 1933, hardly any country stood up to Hitler until it was too late.

The British author and historian James Hawes writes in „The Shortest History of Germany“:

„Only the spinelessness of the other powers allowed this vile regime to survive and grow. After 1919, America was clearly the most powerful nation on earth. If it had remained committed to an active role in the world, no German leader would have believed he could revise the result of World War I by force. Instead, the USA failed to step up to the international plate, opting instead for isolationism. Russia had been traumatised by revolution and famine, and was now in the grip of Stalin’s murderous Great Terror. Stalin was terrified of provoking the German attack he knew would someday come. An exhausted Britain simply couldn’t believe that anyone in Germany actually wanted another war; until 1938, its leaders stayed fatuously convinced that if they treated Germany fairly — generously — Hitler would be satisfied. France was even more scared by war and was so torn by internal left-right political conflict that many Frenchmen feared the German army less than their own communists. This non-opposition handed Hitler triumph after triumph, when any real resistance would have soon finished him.“

So, the answer to the question of whether the democratic West could have prevented Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is: probably yes.

See you in Democracy,

Johannes Eber

Today, a few general thoughts on the situation in Europe.

It is often said these days that a new world order is in the making.

A world order with fewer and fewer nations working together for the better of all sides. And a world to come with a few large states calling the shots and asserting their interests against those of others. Less cooperation, more confrontation, so to speak.

That may be so.

To me, the interesting question is about the long term: which world order will prevail? That of cooperation or that of the ruthless pursuit of individual interests?

There is some scientific evidence that cooperation is superior to confrontation in human coexistence. Evolutionary theory once emphasised competition (”survival of the fittest”), but modern research shows that cooperation is a powerful evolutionary strategy.

Three short examples.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma demonstrates that while defection can win in the short term, mutual cooperation produces higher long-term payoffs.

In repeated interactions (iterated games), strategies like Tit for Tat (cooperate first, then reciprocate) perform best.

Political scientist Robert Axelrod showed in computer tournaments that cooperative strategies outperform purely aggressive ones when interactions are ongoing.

I will not go into further detail about the examples above. They are intended only to demonstrate that people who cooperate within groups often outcompete purely selfish groups.

Which brings me to the current situation in Europe.

Europe consists of many small and medium-sized states. Experience has taught them that cooperation is superior to conflict.

Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, the power claims of China’s dictatorship, and the populism and extremism of Donald Trump have brought Europe even closer together.

For example, today, Europe is practically single-handedly shouldering the foreign financing of Ukraine’s defence following the almost complete withdrawal of the US. At the same time, it is expanding its own defence capabilities.

“We have to understand that in the era of big powers, our freedom is no longer a given. It is at stake. We will need to show firmness and determination to assert this freedom,”

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said this week at the Munich Security Conference.

Nutshell: The new realities are not only sinking in among politicians and the general public in Europe, but strong and necessary reactions are also taking place and becoming visible. Democracies are sometimes a little slower in this regard. It could be fast enough.

See you in Democracy,

Johannes Eber

Friend of Democracy,

Today, just a photo from last week’s travelling through Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia (I took the picture at the train station of Prijedor in Bosnia and Herzegovina), and a quote by Maya Angelou:

“Perhaps travel cannot prevent bigotry, but by demonstrating that all peoples cry, laugh, eat, worry, and die, it can introduce the idea that if we try and understand each other, we may even become friends.”

Maya Angelou was an American poet, memoirist, and civil rights activist best known for her autobiographical book ‚I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings‘ (1969), which powerfully depicts her early life and experiences with racism and resilience.

See you in Democracy,

Johannes Eber

It has probably never been easier to create a life of prosperity for ourselves than it is today.

Not least because we are more educated than ever before. In Europe, about 99 per cent of adults can read and write — the result of a historical process.

More.

Compulsory primary education laws spread across Europe between 1800 and 1900. It was because states realised literacy was crucial for industrial labour, military conscription, taxation and administration. Railways, newspapers, and cheap printing made reading practically useful.

It didn‘t stop with literacy.

After 1945 and especially after 1970, Universities expanded rapidly. Student grants and free or low-cost tuition became available in many countries.

How has it changed in numbers?

Before 1950, typically 1 to 5 per cent of the population attended university. Today, 40-45 per cent of younger European adults (aged 25-34) have completed tertiary education.

Nutshell:

We are more educated and better able to take control of our own destiny than ever before.

See you in Democracy,

Johannes Eber

In Portugal, Antonio José Seguro of the centre-left Socialist Party has secured a landslide victory and a five-year term as Portugal’s president.

Why is this important?

63-year-old Seguro, who is a former leader of Portugal’s Socialist Party, beat his far-right, anti-establishment rival, Andre Ventura, in a run-off vote. Seguro had won more than 65 per cent of the vote to Ventura’s 34 per cent, with more than 90 per cent of districts reporting.

So the extremist far-right has been beaten devastatingly?

Well. Ventura is the first extreme-right candidate to reach a run-off vote in Portugal. Second, with his 34 per cent of the vote, he is still likely to secure a much stronger result than the 22.8 per cent his anti-immigration Chega party achieved in last year’s general election. Third, despite his loss on Sunday, the 43-year-old Ventura, a charismatic former television sports commentator, can now boast increased support, reflecting the growing influence of the far right in Portugal and much of Europe.

Back to the winner and the new presidency, how powerful is the president of Portugal?

Executive power is mainly with the government, led by the prime minister. The president stands above day-to-day politics and acts as a guardian of the Constitution and political stability. They can dissolve parliament and call early elections (this has been done multiple times in modern Portugal). And they appoint the prime minister (usually the leader of the largest parliamentary majority, but not automatically).

In a nutshell:

Voters in Portugal have spoken out emphatically against populism and right-wing extremism. However, this does not mean that such anti-democratic politics are on the decline in Portugal.

See you in Democracy,

Johannes Eber

When you cross the border from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Croatia (as I did this week in Metković in the south of Croatia), one thing becomes very obvious: The standard of living in Croatia is significantly higher than it is in its neighboring country. The roads are better developed, and the houses are larger and plastered.

A number:

Croatia’s nominal GDP per capita is roughly 2.5 to almost 3 times higher than Bosnia and Herzegovina’s.

nominal GDP > a country’s total economic output measured at current market prices, divided by its population, without adjusting for inflation or differences in cost of living

Why is it so?

Croatia has one of the longest coastlines in Europe. The mainland coastline is about 1,777 km. If you include the many islands, it is 5,835 km. So there is a lot of room for people wanting to make a holiday by the sea.

More numbers.

Croatia records more than 20 million tourist arrivals every year, which is five times its population. In 2024, foreign tourists generated nearly €15 billion in revenue for Croatia, a record high and an increase from previous years. The country on the Dalmatian Coast is, therefore, a good example of how peaceful coexistence and unrestricted freedom of movement can bring prosperity to a country.

See you in Democracy.

Today, just a photo I took this week on a hiking tour near the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the city whose siege (the longest in modern history; 1.425 days) ended 30 years ago and which has since been a free city in a democratic country.

See you in Democracy.

More than 30 years ago, on 14 December 1995, the Dayton Peace Agreement was signed.

What is that?

It was about ending the Bosnian War and defining how Bosnia and Herzegovina would function as a state afterwards.

What war?

The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina lasted from 1992 to 1995 and involved Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs. It was marked by ethnic cleansing, sieges (like Sarajevo), and mass atrocities.

So the war has been over for a long time. But:

I am currently in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The city was besieged for almost four years by Serbia and Bosnian Serbs. About 11,000 people died. Still, bullet holes can be seen in unrenovated houses, plaques with names and dates of birth and death commemorate the dead everywhere, and on the outskirts of the city, you can see destroyed and abandoned houses.

How did the war end?

In mid–1995, Bosnian government forces and Croat forces launched successful offensives, rolling back earlier Serb gains. At the same time, NATO carried out Operation Deliberate Force, a sustained air campaign against Bosnian Serb military targets. Together, these actions broke the stalemate and made continued fighting untenable. The mix of military pressure and intense international diplomacy culminated in the Dayton Peace Agreement.

How can a country live in peace when its people have been fighting and killing each other for years?

This is the question I‘ve been asking myself since I arrived here.

A clue:

The Dayton agreement froze the conflict. But daily life wasn‘t. Kids went to school. People needed jobs, buses, doctors, and coffee. Markets, weddings, funerals force contact. Maybe it is that simple. Over time, survival routines create a sense of functional peace, even when trust is thin.

What do I mean by „the conflict was frozen“?

Dayton made Bosnia and Herzegovina a single sovereign state divided into two entities—the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska—with a special self-governing Brčko District. Bosnia and Herzegovina has a three-member collective presidency (one Bosniak, one Croat, one Serb) and multiple layers of government designed to balance ethnic power. The system, created by the Dayton Peace Agreement, prioritises preventing renewed conflict but often results in political paralysis and ethnic vetoes.

So no progress?

There is. But it is slow. Progress in Bosnia and Herzegovina is called normalisation. Mixed cities function, economies interlink, people travel, marry, and work across ethnic lines—things like that. Plus: Younger generations are less invested in wartime identities, even if they inherit the system built around them.

The result:

No return to war. Three decades of peace matter more than they sound.

See you in Democracy.