“Germany needs a CSU for the East” says Kim Lane Scheppele in her interview with Süddeutsche Zeitung. We read this as a call to examine how politics takes root in communities and how people feel recognised: Who is present on the ground? Who takes an interest in people’s experiences? Who credibly represents their concerns?
At the heart of Scheppele’s interpretation is a sense of being disrespected. “People there feel disrespected and want someone to speak for them,” she says of people in eastern Germany. Her argument is that this need can be met within democracy. It requires political forces willing to listen, build relationships and take responsibility.
Her explanation of Péter Magyar’s success in Hungary follows the same logic. Scheppele describes a politician who wanted to get to know people in rural communities and reached across political divides with the promise of a functioning state. In her view, democratic change succeeds when civic engagement and political movements come together.
For us at eKairos, this points to a concrete task: “people should be able to experience democracy as something they can help shape.” That means opportunities to contribute their experiences, encounter other perspectives and understand how their collective input is used.
The OECD provides an important reference point. Its report published on 29 June 2026 describes a close association between perceived political voice and trust in public institutions. It also emphasises the importance of clear feedback on citizen participation. These findings suggest a direction; the impact of any specific format still needs to be tested.
This connection between dialogue and agency is what we are working on with EchoPolis. Our idea is a listening infrastructure: people meet in cafés, associations, workplaces or online. AI should support facilitation, make space for different voices and help participants understand the reasons behind people’s positions. Common ground, disagreements and minority perspectives should become visible and understandable.
Productive disagreement should count as a valuable outcome in its own right. Which experiences lead to different perspectives? Where is there agreement? Which questions remain open? We want to assess the quality of a conversation by whether participants understand one another better and feel their views have been represented fairly.
For this to become meaningful participation, there needs to be a clear connection to the responsible institutions. From the outset, it should be clear which decision participants can influence, who will receive the results and when a response will follow. What will be taken forward? What needs further examination? What is being rejected, and why?
The same standard applies to us. We must examine whom we reach, which perspectives are missing and how reliable our analysis is. We must also make clear whether the conversations lead to an institutional response. This is where our approach will be tested.
Towards the end of the interview, Scheppele’s optimism rests on a society’s ability to recognise threats and question itself critically. For eKairos, this is an encouraging thought: democratic renewal begins with a willingness to listen more carefully and allow one’s own actions to be scrutinised.
We aim to build infrastructure that brings people into conversation and gives their concerns a clear, traceable route into decision-making.