One image from the first year of Trump’s second presidency still speaks louder than a thousand words: the row of tech billionaires at his inauguration. There they sat — Silicon Valley’s titans, the self-proclaimed champions of free speech, the supposed vanguard of the technological revolution — clapping like obedient schoolchildren for their new leader. For an entire year, they did little else: applauding, paying courtesy calls, and showering him with compliments.

This spectacle of corporate capture, or at the very least collaboration with authoritarianism, is neither unique nor new. History has repeatedly shown the dangers of unchecked corporate power aligning with political authority. But it has also revealed the antidote: worker participation and control. Democracy in the workplace is not merely an ideal; it is a necessary safeguard against the excesses of corporate bosses. And now, a timely report from Spain demonstrates how countries can turn this vision into reality.

Historic lessons about corporate capture

We must avoid reductio ad Hitlerum, of course, but the parallels with the 1930s are unsettling. Back then, the industrial elite — coal and steel magnates — bent to the will of an authoritarian leader. Fascism and its war machine thrived because Germany’s heavy industry collaborated with Hitler. What was supposed to be the backbone of the economy turned out to be spineless under political pressure from the right.

But history offers lessons, and we learned them — immediately after the second world war. The solution did not come from courts, ethical codes, or corporate social responsibility courses. It came from the factory floor.

One of the architects of post-war Germany was Otto Brenner, a trade unionist who had watched in dismay as industry enabled the Nazis. Right after the war, in 1946, he organised one of the first major strikes in Hanover: the Bode-Panzer strike. After 23 days, he won. Beyond wage increases, the unions secured structural influence through strong works councils and seats on company boards — Mitbestimmung, or co-determination.

Strong workplace democracy would prevent companies from aligning with anti-democratic leaders and practices. Employees with a say in corporate governance could avert a total ethical collapse.

The British occupation forces in Germany saw the value in this approach and introduced far-reaching co-determination in the iron and steel industry in 1947, giving workers up to half the votes on supervisory boards. A few years later, a weaker system was rolled out across other sectors.

Today’s steel sector is big tech

The current tech industry occupies the position that the steel industry once held: essential to the economy, to society, and to modern warfare. The images of tech icons standing shoulder to shoulder with Trump show that history risks repeating itself. Once again, the economic elite proves vulnerable to political pressure. Once again, corporate empires are blindly sailing into the trap of anti-democracy. And once again, there is no democratic corrective.

The worst part? We had already been warned, and the solution was within reach. A few years ago, unprecedented protests erupted at Google and Amazon. Employees rebelled against what they saw as unethical projects pushed by their bosses. They demanded a voice, workplace democracy, the right to challenge chief executives and hold them accountable.

It didn’t work. The tech giants ploughed ahead without dissent, opposition, participation, or democracy — and ended up in last year’s photograph, staring like children at the puppet show of the Trump spectacle.

But the lesson is clear: workplace democracy, participation, dissent, involvement — these are not empty HR slogans or pesky union demands. They are essential pillars of our political democracy, and thus of our prosperity and well-being.

How to move forward: Spanish lessons

“Governments shall promote various forms of participation in companies and, through appropriate legislation, encourage cooperative enterprises. Governments shall also facilitate workers’ access to ownership of the means of production.”

This is not an excerpt from a revolutionary pamphlet. It is Article 129.2 of the Spanish constitution, adopted after the fall of Franco’s regime in 1978. It sets a clear mandate for Spanish governments: to promote workplace democracy in all its forms — through employee involvement, cooperatives, and ownership of the means of production.

Unfortunately, half a century later, we must acknowledge that few Spanish governments have truly embraced this task. For now, Spanish workers can rely on fairly conventional forms of participation through works councils and unions. But “ownership of the means of production,” a cooperative revolution, or far-reaching employee involvement in companies? Little of that has materialised.

Labour minister Yolanda Díaz knows this and has the ambition to change it. Over a year ago, she assembled a panel of experts to examine workplace democracy. Led by Isabelle Ferreras, a professor at UCLouvain, the panel published its findings in February 2024.

Díaz does not want to tinker at the margins — she wants to rewrite the architecture of capitalism. To do this, she aims to fulfil the ambitions of 1978. The expert report proposes several avenues: stronger works councils, employee representation on company boards, employee share ownership, a citizen fund to anchor companies in their communities, facilitated employee buyouts in succession scenarios, adjusted fiduciary responsibilities of shareholders, training for employees, unions, and managers on democratic corporate governance, and the establishment of an observatory on workplace democracy.

A few of these proposals deserve closer examination. First, employee representation on boards — a hotly debated topic, even among Spanish unions. The experts suggest reserving between one-third and one-half of board seats for employee representatives, depending on company size. Interestingly, companies and unions can decide how to implement this: either by having employees appoint representatives independently of the works council, by giving the works council a vote on the board without attending meetings, or by having the works council appoint representatives who serve on both bodies.

Employee share ownership is equally compelling. The experts propose transferring 2 per cent of shares to employees in companies with at least 25 workers, rising to 10 per cent in companies with 1,000 or more employees.

The report also aims to stimulate cooperatives, offering a creative proposal. Many small Spanish businesses face a difficult choice when the founder or owner retires: continue or sell to — often foreign — private equity firms. A third of Spanish business owners are set to retire in the next decade, and over 70 per cent have no succession plan. Without alternatives, this risks becoming a fire sale of Spanish small and medium-sized enterprises.

The experts want to add a third option: transferring the business to employees. They propose incentivising companies without succession plans to hand over ownership to workers, through tax benefits for employee buyouts or the creation of a citizen fund to provide financial support.

A 400-page document now sits on the table of Spain’s social partners and government, waiting for action. The future will tell what comes of it.

Nevertheless, the situation is clear. The American circus exposes the vulnerability of political democracy when corporate power goes unchecked. German history offers a proven path to solutions, and the Spanish expert report provides a veritable roadmap. It remains to be seen whether we can avoid repeating historic mistakes — or instead put the necessary safeguards in place against the political capture of corporations, through worker participation.