Intel CPU Shortage Puts Pressure on Industry +++ From Schematic to Application with SoMs +++ Opinion: A Different Kind of Lawfulness
Deep Respect for the Law –
just in a different Way!
Rosa had been altering clothes in a department store since early morning. She is relieved to have finished for the day. After a long day at work, the 42-year-old boards the bus that is supposed to take her home into her evening. She sits down in the first row of a group of seats. The bus continues to fill up, and seats become scarce. Three other men are seated next to her. The bus is about to depart.
But just before leaving, the bus driver stands up, comes over to her, and asks her and her seatmates to give up their seats for another passenger. The three men stand up, but Rosa disagrees—she remains seated. The driver then calls the police, and she is arrested.
It is December 1, 1955—a pivotal moment in the American civil rights movement and the beginning of a 381-day bus boycott. All four passengers addressed were African American, and the man who had just boarded was white. At the time, the Jim Crow laws were in effect. As soon as the first white passenger could no longer find a seat, Black passengers were required to vacate an entire row. The boycott ended when the U.S. Supreme Court declared those laws unconstitutional. Rosa Parks became a national symbol of nonviolent resistance. She later said: “I was not physically tired […] I was just tired of giving in.”
She thus belongs to the exclusive circle of outstanding and highly respected figures such as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela. From the perspective of the laws at the time, they were all defiant rule-breakers. Society cannot function without rules, and they must be followed. However, there are times when rules are particularly unjust—and when the majority of the population, along with large parts of the government, are aware of this. Then—and only then—is the moment when civil disobedience becomes justified.
According to Wikipedia, it is a form of political participation whose roots go back to antiquity. It is a symbolic act—carried out consciously and for reasons of conscience—that involves the deliberate violation of legal norms. By engaging in civil disobedience, the acting citizen aims to eliminate a perceived injustice. In doing so, they assert their moral right to participate. Civil disobedience is often interpreted as a “deep respect for the law” when it seeks to draw attention to flaws within the legal system. It is regarded as part of a vibrant democracy.
Greta Thunberg also set an effective movement in motion through civil disobedience in 2018. At the age of 15, she was actually supposed to attend school on Fridays. Instead, with a sign reading “School Strike for Climate,” she founded the movement “Fridays for Future.” Civil disobedience in order to protect the environment.
Today, eight years later, it may once again be time for civil disobedience. Europe is too preoccupied with bureaucracy. In trying to regulate numerous issues as perfectly as possible, we have quite literally, as a collective EU, lost ourselves at the very tail end of diminishing marginal returns. In some areas, the benefits may even have already turned negative.
We are investing increasing effort for very marginal gains—and in too many areas at once: REACH, SCIP, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), fire safety regulations, the Supply Chain Due Diligence Act, DGUV V3, the Deforestation Regulation, sustainability reporting, the Pay Transparency Act, the Cyber Resilience Act, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, and so on. All of these make sense to a certain extent, but somehow it also feels like a bit too much—and too costly, doesn’t it?! Especially when competitors in other countries are not required to comply with all of this to the same extent.
How do we find the sweet spot of bureaucracy in a economically strong, democratic Europe? One option might be to send Edmund Stoiber back to Brussels as a commissioner for reducing bureaucracy—perhaps it would work the second time around. Or one could implement a proposal by the FDP from before the last federal election: first, introduce no new regulations for one year; second, give every new regulation an automatic expiration date that must be actively renewed; and third, for every new regulation, two others must be abolished. However, that proposal seems to have faded along with the party.
Unfortunately, none of these approaches really work. Bureaucracy is readily built up—abundantly so—but hardly ever reduced. The problem is a systemic asymmetry: it is easy to introduce rules intended to protect as many lives and rights as possible, but extremely difficult to roll them back without risking that some of those rights and protections are lost again. This creates a moral dilemma that tends to result in ever more bureaucracy. In the end, it seems to hold true: “Not introducing something in the first place is easier than trying to remove it later.”
Hoping for a meaningful reduction in bureaucracy is probably futile. So what can we do instead? We could selectively resort to the last means of civil disobedience and, for the time being, simply ignore the most absurd, burdensome, ineffective, and contradictory new regulations. We could stop letting consulting firms scare us. We could face the next audit more calmly—if it even comes. We could ask customers and suppliers who demand ineffective bureaucratic measures from us for their understanding that we will no longer comply. The more organizations act this way, the lower the likelihood of consequences. The first movers might even be rewarded with recognition.
Mondays are reserved for Monday demonstrations, Fridays for the climate. I therefore propose that, starting today, we in the German economy use every Wednesday to collectively reflect on where we ourselves can reduce excessive bureaucracy. And whether we really need to rush into fully implementing every new rule right away—perhaps some of them will be softened later anyway.
We don’t have to stay seated on a bus in the morning or play hooky—we do want to contribute to the economy, after all. But on those Wednesdays, instead of introducing new layers of bureaucracy, we could finally get back to creating real value: driving innovation, developing great competitive products and services, streamlining processes, and so on. That would surely feel liberating—and be a lot of fun, wouldn’t it?
So join in. Share this article within your networks. Send your comments and photos to the relevant channels. It starts this Wednesday!