first draft text of a section on theoretical sorting of Liquid feedback. sources and websites will step by step added. If you do additions, criticisms, or similar sources, they simply post in the comments. Thank you!
The political scientist and former candidate for the federal presidency, Gesine Schwan, in 1986 reported to mandate rotation of the Greens say. Your Text [1] raises fundamental questions, which serves as an introduction to the question of where to locate Liquid Democracy is philosophical.
The violation of the Greens in the 80s was an exciting idea: MPs should give up in the middle of the legislative mandate to assume their substitutes its Office. This should prevent that, the Bundestag remove from the "normal people" and the voter's will, and abuse of power and the emergence of green career politicians complicate the basic idea of the mandate rotation is due to direct-democratic ideas from the French Revolution and the Soviet Republic. Liquid Democracy would also bind the policy stance closer to the electorate. In which drawer So are these ideas?
Gesine Schwan discussed in this context, the two great European traditions of democratic theory: the identity-(direct democracy), and representative democracy. This is what I want to understand short, then a sorting order of Liquid Feedback make.
1) identitarian / direct democracy
Representative: Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, Lenin, anarchists, modern protagonists of the Soviet Republic
core idea is that people retains absolute sovereignty over his will. Chosen must therefore adhere absolutely to the will of voters. MPs serve only as a "technical medium" in large territorial states, as a kind of "executive body", without its own political will. Members are permanently available. Vital mission, ie not adopted may differ from the electoral mandate, represents only the Interests of his constituents.
ideals abolition of the "domination" of the few over the "ruled"
problems What is the will of voters?
Rousseau: Target does not have the "will of all", but the general will (volonté generale ") long. This is what, after deduction for all individual and particular interests of individual turns out to be an advantage for society / people. [The need for "democracy" at that time was unthinkable. Rousseau was primarily with the "general will question the monarch lent her qua Catholic Church" God-given " to avoid identification.]
But even in the 20th century would be at issue, as one might DETERMINATION to hundreds of issues the general will. For Rousseau, and for many socialists, identity-democracy is possible only under two conditions:
1) The company must overcome through education / information / her broaden awareness of conflicts of interest and homogeneously. The man is selfish in the fact of a caring nature walk. The man then would find its fulfillment will not in the independence of the society, but in union with the general will.
2) The objects the law must simply be kept for any political lay transparent and manageable.
Marx hoped that unlike Rousseau, that result in the historical development of the production process into a homogeneous community wants to become. Lenin was again ready for the general will through coercion of a minority to impose on the majority.
2) Representative democracy
Representative: John Locke, Charles de Montesquieu, Ernst Fraenkel, Edmund Burke
core idea: There is no complete agreement between voters and elected (reality too complex, at the time of election is not information about all decisions of the legislature in stock). The person elected may differ from the electorate. The person elected is not available. The person elected represents public interests, not only the interests of "his" voters. The "free mandate" secures no regards to the Party and voters. Voters can judge "only" after the expiration of the term "total conduct" of the candidates, but not individual decisions.
ideals securing individual freedom, separation of powers, parliamentary debate
problems
a) Argumentative debate in Parliament illusory. Instead, exhibition matches to the public.
b) Free mandate in fact hardly realistic. It is abused for personal benefit or is under the pressure of lobbying or re-election interests and / or political group, association and party pressures.
c) In the wake of actual voters, or the binding contract between electors and elected is often completely lost, with disastrous consequences such as loss of faith, politics and opposition to the representative system.
intermediate result:
Gesine Schwan sorts the rotation of the Greens in the first group (without, of course, the Greens in a corner with Lenisten or Marxists to ) Position. It recognizes the attempt to introduce democratic ideals of Rousseau directly without a dictatorship to do. Nevertheless, she stated that the objective can not be satisfied if either the condition of the harmonious society nor the radically simplified policymakers met. Until this occurs, benefits from the principle of rotation is not the will of the people, but the institution that forces the members to rotate.
And where is now Liquid Democracy? Are
Unfortunately, so far no "official definition", nor a philosopher who has "the" Liquid Democracy defined model. Instead, I would like at this point preliminary Definition from the Pirates Wiki viewpoints and these refer .
Like the pirates, I will distinguish below between the whole society (1) and the intra-party (2) approach by Liquid Democracy:
(1) Liquid Democracy for society binding decision tool
Liquid Democracy maintains a hybrid between direct and representative democracy to be. This assertion is only partially correct. For Liquid Democracy is nothing but the abolition of the Parliament and its Members / Repräsentatnten [2]. Replaced by a transparent Parliament voting software on the Internet by all citizens have a voice. All decisions taken by then, Parliament will now be taken by citizens in the software [3]. So it's actually the most radical form of direct democracy, which is conceivable.
What are the consequences? Well - first of all, the entire problem area is eliminated by Rousseau, Marx and Lenin, or agents of the Soviet Republic had to fight. For there can be no more difference between the citizen's will and the will of its representatives. Why? Because there are no more representative. The "delegate" votes can be so dissatisfied at any time be withdrawn or transferred to someone else.
This is also the (probably?) Utopian hope for a re-education through dictatorship and brought about general will (volonté generale) superfluous. Instead of a "dictatorship of the few" who enforce a common will as always justified, in the Liquid Democracy, the majority prevails.
And that can change entirely. Because in contrast to direct democracy, there is no binding of MPs to predetermined, unchangeable Decisions. Laws and decisions in the Liquid Democracy apply - as in a parliamentary democracy - until they are repealed by a different decision / law.
There is also collected in representative democracy, competing interests, which (here must be speculated lack Implementation) most likely to interest organizations .
The concept of "delegation" to friends, experts or groups may still same complexity for the individual citizen can be reduced. He no longer has to deal with politics, as in representative democracy, but it can. A Another point why, complexity is not a big problem, explains about the new features of the Internet as Schwarminterligenz or abrogation of the information transport capacity, see detail here .
CONCLUSION: So I would the Liquid Democracy as a radical form of direct democracy classify, but - because they omitted to representatives, bypasses many problems with earlier proposals for direct democracy at least on a theoretical level. In order to answer the question
the title: Rousseau might have been thrilled.
[Interestingly, however, could be the issue of whether the (as they are defined) Chief Executive (ministers, secretaries of state and government) to act on the decisions taken by the majority and whether we will allow deviations. Also the dilemma of the delegation has only shifted it to?]
(2) Liquid Democracy as an intra-party tool to shape opinion in the Pirate Party of Germany
The now currently in Pirate Party created software called Liquid feedback solution is much simpler from a theoretical point of view . Sort them Lack of decision-making power is neither a segregated into their representative or direct democracy, democratic theory. Instead, the software is optional as a "feedback channel" to the broad party basis for the decision-making bodies of the party (currently the board and the party conventions) to be considered.
In principle, the intra-party application, like described above, to be classified as direct democratic tool. However, the party executive and the national party easily deviate from the decisions.
CONCLUSION: The independent mandate of representative democracy (here in relation to the party leadership) remains preserved. Liquid feedback in this Zuammenhang and development at this time only a tool of internal party opinion formation, development and documentation. That produces no democratic theory problems.
----
[1] Schwan, Gesine: Members of withdrawal, in: Graf von Krockow, Christian and Clear, Peter: Parties in Crisis, 1986 Munich, p. 135 -145.
[2] There are also representatives who hold to a parliament and political parties understand and Liquid feedback only as a supplementary collective opinion of naming and Gesetzvorschlagungstool.
[3] It is unclear to me still, like governments, above all the necessary (political responsible) Minister and Secretaries of the ministries, are elected and how often their dismissal is possible.
0 comments:
Post a Comment