Newton's Law Of Motion Apollo 13

What is happening to the role of party members by Liquid Democracy?

draft text of a section on the possible change in function of the party membership of a innperparteilichen use of Liquid Democracy. If you do additions, criticisms, or similar sources, they simply post in the comments. Thank you!

"What do political parties, professional members?" This provocative question Dr. Klaus Detterbeck from the University of Magdeburg [1] . In this text I would like to briefly summarize his thoughts, and consider whether Liquid Democracy could change the role of party members.

first stated Detterbeck a "professionalization" of political parties, however this same with a crisis. This can be read primarily in the light of the dramatic decline in membership numbers. 2003, (only) 1.55 more million Germans member of the six parties represented in parliament. The level of organization of the voters, at 2.5 percent below the level of the 60 years. At the same time there is a high degree of politicization of the population that wants to be involved in political decisions. It is this contradiction between high interest and low party membership a Europe-wide phenomenon [2] , this little comfort.

addition to the dramatic decline in membership, provides Detterbeck further signs of crisis of parties:

• Low recruitment ability of the parties in East Germany
• passivity of many party members in regard to the organizational life
• Under Proportional representation of women
• Small number of young party members

When is a party "modern"? How to recognize a "modern" parties? (see p. 290 f. Detterbeck)

• The public appearance and internal decision-making processes of the parties are primarily shaped by professional politicians, their power resources from their Functions in parliaments and governments take.
• State action in parliaments and governments has become a central reference point for the parties. Elite recruitment and policy production is central to the parties.
• Programmatic social positions and creative projects the parties are weak by the voters wide orientation and the inter-party cooperation in parliamentary life contoured .
• in the design of election campaigns is media marketing and communications experts working as bars in the party headquarters or as an external service provider for the parties, a prominent Importance.
• diversity of state of the areas in the career strategies of professional politicians and the complexity of internationalized policy are mutually reinforcing.

But why lose this "modern" parties so many members? Detterbeck called two in the common political science theories:

A) parties no longer have to rely on members and / or for modern party members can even be a burden. Loss of members is not a problem, but a desired side effect.
B) parties are victims of various modern, social developments.

A) deliberate loss of members

According to this model, the decline of party members a conscious calculus or at least accept change and therefore no theoretical problem of democracy: "The competitors paradigm accepts the dominance of political elites in mass democracies." A voter is only the task "between competing professional groups to select management" (p. 292). Inner-party democracy in this model would be more harmful because it limits the flexibility of the political elites. Political elites should be guided by this model, the less "radical party activists, but rather at" moderate voters. " Possible waiver of the party members including the following change is:

• mass media allow the party elites a direct approach to the voters. The mediation by party members no longer necessary.
• Larger state benefits have replaced the declining membership fees.
• campaigns were centralized, professionalized and today are mainly capital-intensive rather than members.

party members are therefore not only replaceable, but almost dangerous. Parties had to be open to electoral success and win as a socially heterogeneous following. Parties as campaign organizations eventually Stimmmenmaximierung forced to. This has led to a "devaluation of the role of each party member" [3] .

B) parties have lost ability to motivate citizens to participate.

According to this model, there were a number of more social reasons why fewer people want to participate in political parties:

• erosion of social milieus and individualization tendencies.
• A higher educational level of independence in the political opinion out. This weakens the traditional socialization role of the parties.
• A higher degree of political Information promotes higher standards of political participation and promotes dissatisfaction with the hierarchical and elite-centered style of politics.
• The leisure time has changed. Parties offer little or social incentives. In addition, there would be many more alternatives: television, sports, clubs. Other reasons: increased prosperity, changing consumer habits.

Detterbeck, however, provides all things but in the first approach, the reasons for the decline in membership. Parties have therefore learned to live with the loss of members and come to terms with it. This is problematic because the party members also today for the democratic legitimacy of the institution "party" is decisive. Only with a broad popular participation in an active inner-party democracy could justify the parties to its prominent role in virtually all state institutions.

"Here we meet to say a very different democracy theoretical understanding of the political process than in the previously mentioned competitors paradigm. While there, members of the functions of the inter-party competition rather difficult to be met in Trasmissionsparadigma only through the active participation of the citizens of the democratic principle of life."

criticized in his summary Detterbeck the half-hearted solutions with which the parties currently on the problem of "lack of internal party democracy" experiment . He requested that the parties should decide clear: either they rely on an efficient, autonomous party leadership and resign themselves to the fact that their party has few members of the party, or put them to effective participation of the base, then the benefits of party members to be able to perceive. Elite autonomy of the Board and members commitment to realize the same time lead, but just too many contradictions:

"To perform a party primary elections, work out, however, that these play a minor role, or purely affirmative act to give party leaders. many opportunities for debate, but also undermine the decision-making bodies of the party. Whether regional conferences, discussion forums or online communications, the emphasis is on the consultation of the members, not their votes. [This] is the loss of members can not stop. "(P. 302)

" are parties, without having to get the issue is under control, can thus rightly concerned when the attractiveness of their membership organization due to lack of opportunities for participation continues to decline "( p. 303)

Liquid Democracy What could change the situation?

First of all, I would disagree with Detterbeck so far that here is not primarily put the parties in the crisis. They are living - as he described it - actually quite well with the situation, even if they "die off" more members. The real "crisis" currently experienced even the democratic system in the Federal Republic. Not to cure the parties, but for the healing of the entire political system needs to be inner-party democracy "repaired".

Liquid feedback, while meeting the demands that Dr. Detterbeck has defined: It would be a serious, direct democratic tool that gives extensive possibilities of Beteiligiung, which (depending on the implementation) is actually the scope of party elites could limit. What happened if they would express the majority of CDU supporters against an extension of the nuclear run-time? It is expected that the sense "to influence" by Liquid feedback considerably increases, even if the Board and factions refusing to follow any decision.

But Liquid Democracy goes beyond the requirement of only "a tool for direct-democratic views on finding" beyond. And this increase of the function is to see that it each party member to open and allows for initiatives related to his party majorities.

Dettmer has described above, that party executives for electoral reasons tend to avoid clear positions and indulging in compromise wording to address broader groups of voters, but also to integrate all party wings. In addition to program applications will be rejected on national conventions in any case. This would be a loss of face for the board.

A single member of the party has tended to bring a higher risk applications, which might find a majority in his party. Also, individual party members think less strategically where optimal "overall thrust" of their party would be, but simply want to enforce only "their" position. This can lead to significant intra-party surprises. DONE the Pirate Party, which advocated abolition of the incest case for a paragraph. Such a sensitive application - without urgent social necessity - would have avoided any board well. First, because the vote would have been totally unpredictable, the other probably also to prevent a potential target for other parties in the election campaign.

long run, Liquid feedback sharpen so the profiles between the parties and thus create even described by Dr. Detterbeck "lost social identification" with the parties again. Also, could the permanent correction of the base (which is so often in compromise ) mean that the party much more in Interests of the voter, thus increasing even the electoral prospects of the party. Total

me the model of inner-party democracy is more convincing. Citizens should not have only every four years, the ability to respond to the political elites with a dismissal or confirmation. Especially the often cited the complexity of the policy, it makes more necessary than ever for voters to take, thematic influence to be able to swing without simultaneously with the recall-lobe.


------


(1) Detterbeck, Klaus: Members of professionalized parties: What do political parties, members; in: Melchert, Florian (ed.): Instead of beginning decline - the future of the party members, Berlin 2009, p.289-304.
(2) Scarrow, Susan E.: Parties without members? Party organization in a changing electoral environment, in: Dalton, Russell J., Wartenberg, Martin P. (eds.): Parties without Partisans. Political change in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford 2000, p. 79-101.
(3) quoted by Detterbeck: see Kirchheimer, Otto: The Transformation of Western European party system, in: Political Quarterly 6, 1965, p. 32