Electoral program: focus


The electoral program currently under discussion has too many items. I strongly recommend to reduce them to a few key messages and relegate the rest to “topics internally under discussion”. The reason is simple: the more items there are to agree upon, the less people will agree on all item, and the less items people agree on, the less vigor they bring to promoting the program. Indeed, the success of right wing or populist parties across the globe is based on their mobilization of supporters on the basis of a few cornerstones (two or max. three each): stop immigration, less taxes, more regional power, f*k politicians, direct democracy, stop Europe - that’s about all there is to these parties’ success. The key to electoral success is to be the paladin of one or two issues that many people can agree with. If people recognize a sufficient relative importance to these one or two issues they might vote for you. DiEM25 has such issues, stated in its manifesto: a European constitutional assembly and increasing transparency and democracy in the EU (please excuse my extreme simplification). This is something DiEM25 and ES can attract voters with, taking votes from a large range of the population. Adding anything more means reducing the electoral potential dramatically. It is a question of priority: do we really deem that the European constitutional assembly and the consequential redefinition of democracy is a priority? Then we should focus on that and on that only. Otherwise we are discussing the program of the n-th 0.x% party left of the traditional social-democratic parties.

PS: I have never assisted the campaigning of a loosing party :wink:


please excuse my extreme simplification

Excused. Your simplification is the perfect definition of the best case scenario for a renewed Europe we can reach. When people understand what a constitutional assembly means, there could be support across the whole political spectrum. It’s a very good topic to discuss with voters. And even if we can’t get a huge majority, every person we can educate in this area is a step forward. Nothing to loose, everything to gain.


I think we shouldn’t confuse the policy we want to communicate to voters and supporters - one pager, a few topics - and the policies we want to craft for scrutiny. The media is quick in dismantling populist parties for their lack of thought-through policy.
Anyway it might be interesting to think about an inner-ES-executive-summary for negotiations and a longer program for the individual countries …


God Bless you bro’ Keep it simple for the sake. LEt’s change our words and practices once in the lifetime. We are founding a new left


OK, what’s the way to proceed here?
Taking the most discussed topics in the program here’s top 4:
A New Deal for Culture
European Cooperative - Peoples Bank
European Transaction Tax instead of VAT and labour tax
EU-wide public health insurance


Completely agree. On my side it is:’‘Europe has a social system that is unique in the world, and which is currently threatened by the influence of geopolitical superpowers (USA and China) having different social systems. Europe needs to strenghten its political power to save its own one. The world will probably applause if Europe builds a democratic and socialist model to follow’’.


You don’t live in Italy. Those issues have Not any meaning for anybody. We have forgotten what Democracy means.


I agree with direct democracy. The left should sustain that.


I agree with direct democracy. The left should sustain that.

I was not taking a position on any of these issues but only giving examples of how simple one-line messages get to the people. 30 page programmes don‘t.


I think that the genius idea of Diem25 is to propose a transnational list for the European Parlament. It’s the reason why I will vote for it.

The second is that austerity programs are inproductive in some cases and some situations (OK, is not always bad to put some order in state expends. In the case of Greece, the austerity program was a fail (25% of the PIB lost), even for loaners.

Third, i think that the social state of E.U is the “valeur ajoutee”( of its economy.But it needs control and severe politie.

As you may see, my english is very poor because I prefer french, italian and…greek.!!!

Carpe Diem,



Lo sorprendente es que, a pesar de ser conscientes de la acción demoledora de la verdad de los grandes medios de comunicación, los partidos del cambio no atiendan la necesidad estratégica de introducir en sus programas de políticas mediáticas destinadas a asegurar a la ciudadanía el ejercicio del derecho a la información. Dardo


This thread reminds me of something I read in Ulrike Guerot’s book. “Free and equal vote” , that is our slogan and our goal. Democracy for Europe and that is achieved through a federation.

But I would also like to throw in my five cents to the discussion. I agree that we should keep it simple and I also agree that populist movements have been ridiculed for not being thought through.
But having a simple message with a complex and thought through programme to back it up with is possible :slight_smile:


@RP_S you are right, in terms of mechanics, yet @Laura_F brings up the main problem to our movement - ‘Meaning & Significance’.

Populists and Extreme are working on deeper registers of addressability, closer to an emotion build’up. And is there we should meet them if to have any chance.


I agree with you that this would be a gold standard, also because we can react to topics brought to us. But imho we don’t have a complex and thougt through programme. The Progressive Agenda is still stuck in the making. Actually the idea of collaborating in a common agenda was a reason why I joined Diem, but we failed.
Now I also advocate to keep it simple. That is, keep only constitutional assembly, democratization & transparency, end of austerity & new deal. No more green transitition, no more agriculture & animal rights, no more culture, no more technological sovereignity, no more migration.


I won’t be so sure about that. If you offer me direct democracy with 350M€ buses and without any untouchability of human rights and rule of law, I’d say no. I don’t want to face a mob coming after me with dead penalty.


As i’m part of the Technological Sovereignty Policy Paper Team I strongly object. Allow me to quote my fellow coordinator Joren:

“Why? Because it is clear that without the introduction of technological sovereignty, through the democratization of technology, democracy itself is no longer possible.”

And we aim to show in the 2nd draft why that is far from beeing a commonplace.

Also the migration pillar is crucial to create the future of the EU. If we fail to address this issue we won’t be fit for the decades to come …

Again: I’m not against the idea to focus on 5-10 talking points in the electoral campaign, but that isn’t contrarious to the development of other pillars within DiEM25, isn’t it?


Don’t get me wrong, I also worked on amendments for the migration pillars of the ES-programme. And I would argue these pillars also includes important ideas for European democracy.

But theses pillars are far from being thoroughly discussed in a structured way, “fact-checked” and far from complete. This especially holds for the Progressive Agenda, which is also far from being ready for vote.

Now this weakness of the PA becomes a weakness of the ES-programme, for example: In forums people argue “something is written in the green paper xy”, well in some cases, e.g. migration, the PA green paper was an open google doc where sentence end in nirvana now.

Yes, we are working on it - but I don’t see we got the menpower and the tools to get it done. That’s why I call for a hard focus.


At least for the Technological Sovereignty part this will change soon. But I experienced the same disappointment like you mentioned. when i read some frayed out google docs …