The programmed human – On the end of freedom in the digital financial space
By Oliver Fiechter
While the EU is working on the introduction of a digital euro, one key question remains unanswered: Who will control our money – and therefore our behaviour – in the future? The boundaries of democratic control are blurred between promises of transparency and behavioural control. The digital euro could become the catalyse a new era of power shift – algorithmic, efficient and intangible.
Let’s imagine a scene that could soon become reality – it has long been technically possible. A bookshop in the city centre, soft background music, people leafing through new publications. A man approaches the till and places a book on the counter. The title: Civil Disobedience in the 21st Century. The cashier scans the code, the customer holds his smartphone over the terminal. Nothing happens. The following message appears on the display: “Payment not authorised
– Transaction rejected: Content categorised as subversive”.
Change of scene. A young woman opens her health insurance app. Her monthly premium has risen by 30 per cent. The small print says: “Risk surcharge – conspicuous consumption behaviour: above-average alcohol consumption detected (average data from cash transactions, app activities, residence data)”. She has been partying a lot with friends recently.
The digital euro – central bank policy in times of crisis of confidence
What sounds like dystopian fiction has long been technically possible – and politically conceivable in the near future. It could happen as early as the end of 2025 – if the European Parliament, the European Commission and the European Council approve the plans of its President Ursula von der Leyen. At the centre of this development is a project of the European Central Bank (ECB): the introduction of a digital central bank currency – the so-called digital euro (CBDC – Central Bank Digital Currency).
Officially, the aim is to modernise the European payment infrastructure, secure monetary sovereignty and facilitate the use of digital means of payment. However, the actual effects go far beyond this.
The real question is: who will control not only access to economic participation in the future, but also to our entire social existence? Because what is emerging here is more than just a new payment system – it is a new form of behaviour control in which individual decisions are not only observed, but actively controlled – algorithmically, invisibly, efficiently. The parallels to authoritarian models lie not in the style, but in the structural scope.
Digital infrastructures and the illusion of neutrality
Officially, the digital euro is about efficiency, payment transactions, digital sovereignty and securing monetary policy in the digital age. Behind this, however, lies a more fundamental question: what image of man, what image of society, what understanding of power underlies this project?
The digital euro would not be anonymous money. This means that it could be designed in such a way that it can only be used for certain purposes or in a certain period of time. Money would then no longer be neutrally available, but an instrument for controlling behaviour. At a time of growing crises of trust in institutions, increasing digital surveillance and political polarisation, the project raises fundamental questions about the future of civil freedom.
Above all, however, the programmability of money opens up a new chapter in the history of social control. When every transaction is analysed, categorised and evaluated, infrastructures are created that enable far-reaching interventions in behaviour. In combination with artificial intelligence, biographies can be mapped chronologically from the collected data: Not only can past actions be traced, but future behaviour can also be predicted – and restricted if necessary.
Predictive behaviour – i.e. the algorithmically supported prediction of human behaviour – thus becomes the basis for political sanctions. Not just as a reactive measure, but as a strategic instrument for enforcing moral norms. The aim is not only to
Discipline, but the subtle education of an algorithmically desired lifestyle. A new form of digital normativity: quiet, effective, socially difficult to grasp.
Democracy in structural change – and the end of clear categories
This development not only raises technical or ethical questions, but also touches on a deeper paradox of our time: what used to be classically associated with autocracy – control, restriction, surveillance – is now increasingly becoming the hallmark of Western democracies. This is particularly evident in the way we deal with the digitalisation of the monetary order: while Donald Trump is criticised as an autocrat in many European media, libertarian positions can be found in his environment – for example on the introduction of Bitcoin as a reserve currency, which would in fact be tantamount to disempowering the central bank.
Ironically, many libertarian counter-proposals to digital centralisation come from actors who are not themselves known for democratic transparency – such as Donald Trump, whose proximity to authoritarian methods does more harm than good to the reputation of libertarian politics.
At the same time, there is remarkably little criticism of the European Central Bank’s plans in the leading European media. The new form of money
– explicitly centralised, programmable and controllable – is hardly discussed as a possible restriction of individual freedom. At the same time, it stands for a technologically modernised state dirigisme that can intervene deeply in the private sphere of citizens – without this being described as authoritarian.
The result is an ideological asymmetry: while authoritarian tendencies are recognised in the debate with illiberal movements, technocratic control fantasies of Western institutions remain largely unquestioned. What used to be separable along political lines – “liberal” versus “authoritarian” – is becoming less clear-cut. What remains is a battle over concepts, control and digital infrastructure.
Ideological ruptures and the crisis of political language
The traditional political coordinates are shifting. Left and right are becoming blurred, the political centre is losing its binding power. It is being replaced by interpretative regimes that operate with moral truth claims. On the one hand, there is a progressive camp that increasingly finds itself caught between the promise of equality and moral standardisation – not infrequently on the left.
At the expense of pluralistic debate spaces. On the other hand, there is a techno-liberal reflex that insists on individual sovereignty, but often overlooks structural inequalities.
Paradoxically, both tendencies share an authoritarian flavour: while progressive discourses operate with moral rigidity, libertarian currents rhetorically use the language of freedom – while in fact they often leave power asymmetries untouched.
Between digital infrastructure and a loss of political trust
The digital euro is an example of this ideological change. On the one hand, it is presented as an instrument for fair and efficient payment processes. On the other hand, it is criticised as a vehicle for comprehensive surveillance. Technologically, programmable central bank money actually opens up new possibilities: Transactions could be earmarked, time-limited or even personalised. What can be useful in crisis situations harbours the potential for the structural exercise of power.
At the same time, decentralised systems such as Bitcoin are gaining popularity as a counter model – especially in political circles that distrust state regulation. While Europe is pushing for centralisation, discursive experiments with the withdrawal of the state from monetary sovereignty are on the rise in the USA – with unclear consequences for social justice and democratic control.
The real conflict of our time is no longer a dispute over content, but a battle for the sovereignty of interpretation. When terms such as “freedom”, “democracy” or “equality” are used in completely different or contradictory ways depending on the context, political debates lose their common language.
Political nihilism thrives in this conceptual dissolution of boundaries. It is less about solutions than about identities, less about analyses than about affects. Anyone who avoids the moral rigour of one side comes under suspicion. Those who emphasise institutional structures are seen as backward-looking. Those who emphasise market mechanisms are considered cold hearted.
Major technological projects such as the digital euro are thus caught up in ideological trench warfare. They are not judged by their function, but by their political affiliation. The discourse becomes brutalised, trust dwindles – and with it the basis for democratic negotiation.
What can be done? What we need is not a new dogma – but a digital order that places transparency, democratic control and the limitation of power at its centre. A digital euro may make sense in an increasingly cashless society – but not as an instrument of paternalistic behavioural control.
When money goes digital, clear rules are needed: No earmarking without democratic legitimisation. No behavioural profiles without informed consent. No invisible control by black box algorithms.
Perhaps it is time to stop leaving the digital space to the big platforms or central banks – and to see it as a social commons. As something that is only legitimate if it belongs to everyone.
Only if we know again what our terms mean – and what we actually want to agree on politically and economically – can the ideological erosion of the centre be halted. And with it the danger of the extremes becoming the new norm.