In the show of Frank Plasberg speech, the voices of time, a lot of moods. It was a “people’s votes for all” and the question of whether “citizens would be the better politicians”. Earlier proponents of plebiscitary elements in the basic law formulated their skepticism, such as the Deputy FDP Federal Chairman Wolfgang Kubicki. How much the mood has changed, but especially the comparison to previous decades.
has been discussed already in the debate on the Constitution after the unification of Germany. At that time the front lines were clear: the social Democrats and the Green were in favour of referendums. Especially the Christian Democrats rejected the introduction of direct democratic elements in the basic law. The opponent based on a statement of the first Federal President, Theodor Heuss. Referendums would be in mass democracies, a “premium for demagogues”.
“Good and bad people voting”
this is the argument of the opponent, little has changed. Only the actors changed. The CDU rejects still, the introduction of referendums at the national level, but the Bavarian Finance Minister Markus Söder (CSU) proved to be a passionate advocate of the contrary position. He met Bettina Gaus. A journalist of the Berlin daily newspaper “taz”, which took Kubicki, the formerly conservative-called Position of a defender of representative democracy. This change of role has benefited the discussion. He saved the audience earlier reflexes.
More about
A method of democratic decision-making processes is, in fact, confuse not with the desire for a different policy. It is regardless of to assess whether people’s votes “good or wrong decisions are made”, as put it, Ms. Gaus. Alone with Claudine Nierth, spokeswoman for the Association “More democracy”, was sometimes something from Rousseau to find and view on the will of the people, make the right decisions.
The Dresden political scientist Werner Patzelt is certainly not suspected to be guided by Rousseau’s democratic ideas. He argued rather in functionalist terms. Elements of direct democracy he regarded as a means against the “remoteness of the political class”. They opened the citizens the opportunity for political Intervention, irrespective of the Bundestag elections. In doing so, he differentiated between “good and bad people’s votes”. Bad such referendums, the want to benefit governments only as a political Legitmation. The Hungarian Referendum about the EU-refugee policy is as much about how the former British Prime Minister James Cameron, the referendum about the fate of his country in the EU.
are Good in Patzelts perspective such referendums, which come from the middle of the people. Revive the political process, because they correct the representation deficits of the party system in the case of controversial topics, so his Argument. He cited the example of the refugee crisis. In the Bundestag, it would have been an all-party coalition, which represented the interior of the political discussion. Referendum could act as a corrective. The Argument of their vulnerability to populist sentiments had Patzelt do not apply. Rather, it could counteract the current Trend towards the destabilization of the party system even.
CSU at the “right edge”?
Frank Plasberg made on the example of Switzerland, the practice test for Patzelts theses. The Swiss political scientist Michael Hermann reported on the local experience with direct democracy. After all, the note on the Swiss concordance democracy, where the interplay between the government and the Opposition has been abolished in 1943, was not lacking. The referendums have become the essential Element of political decision-making. The shapes the political culture of the country. The proposal to adopt the Swiss model of a permanent all-party government for the Bundestag, is heard in the German debate never.
No comments:
Post a Comment