Sample Hand Written Will

Niklas Luhmann and the Pirate Party: Caught in a "closed system policy?

A theoretical explanation for the failure of inner-party democracy in many parties also delivers the systems theory, the sociology of Niklas Luhmann and his extensive work has shaped life . This theory and its applicability to the pirate theme party were in the Issue 24 of the podcast " Penta Cast . The Host (pseudonym "Klobe") talked to the blogger and student Ben Gunn.

the story - especially the last 15 minutes - I found it interesting to me because he reminded us that Niklas Luhmann - hidden behind a lot of theory - provided many important ideas that supports the criticism of the intra-party democracy.

Luhmann's criticism, I would now like to briefly summarize and then ask the question whether the new approach of "Liquid Democracy" Luhmann's conceptual can defuse criticism.

(The following points I have in part taken from my term paper of N. Luhmann.)

Modern society sees Luhmann not as "a body", but divides them into itself as it were evolutionarily progressive, functionally differentiated units - comparable to the spreading biodiversity. These subsystems communicate constantly reproduce themselves by themselves (autopoiesis ). Large units could include the economy, politics or law. Individuals have little significance in the theorem. All human behavior is - even if it is the players do not realize -. the logic of each system subject

Niklas Luhmann

The boundaries of the subsystems is about communication. Each system stands out from his own on a binary encoding. Thus, a "super code" for example, power / non-force in politics. It is important that Luhmann argued here that all sub-systems can only communicate in their own code. And all systems have only the (their own) system, but they place, preferably free environment.

There is no cross-border inputs and outputs. What is perceived as an input, is only in self-constructed information system . The attempt to communicate with other systems fail regularly because the other subsystems always think and act in their own codes. An example. The Government (≈ system policy) intensified the protection against dismissal, the result in the economic system is not primarily that workers are now better protected, but also increased unemployment. An unintended reaction of Economic Systems. Why was that? Well, the employer now wanted the increased financial risk of a hard-setting is no longer over it. The economic system thinks that is in your code: [money] Have & Have Not

Luhmann speaks of the impossibility of communication.. This goes so far as to define the specific systems in their own reproduction of the communication so much from each other that they 'autonomous' are. Autonomous but not independent in the sense of other systems (the legal system needs to continue as policy targets), but in terms of self-control. They are each other closed Systems - other parts of society to the already mentioned system environment.

radical looks Luhmann said due to the self-perpetuating closed societies, the resulting inability to cross-border communication, the resulting mutual transparency, not a social center and no hierarchy of subsystems. Luhmann concludes that no single system may make sense to intervene in the other.

The political system, above all the parties constructing them are closed systems with their own perception and presentation logic. The radical nature of these systems theory should not be underestimated. Finally Luhmann considers the policy (content dimension of the policy) and polity dimension (political programs) for largely meaningless. Only the Politics - the political struggle for share of power - there would remain. Although the system reacts policy on communicative disorders (sit-ins of the anti-nuclear movement, new morals, scandals), nonetheless, but only if it changes in its own binary code ("Increases or decreases the electoral chances (of power)?").

These ideas contradict the ideals of a democratic discourse as especially Jürgen Habermas shaped, and are considered ideal basis for representative democracy, fundamental.

constituted after the podcast this theory in detail, said studio guest Ben Gunn, that the Pirate Party now he is system logic "of power / non power" subject. The pirate party "should connectable Communicate" (ie, reduce the complexity of their issues to the outside world, and reproduced by increasing communication, the party base), they wanted to compete and be successful in the party. However, this would lead to a dilution of the profile of what the panelists in both the Open (long) but also to observe the Pirate Party (now).

Ben Gunn predictive performance with the reference to the system logic that "would make the Pirate Party in 40 years, an interior minister, also exacerbate the safety of these laws will be." After all, the former pacifists and peace party, the Greens, the Federal Republic in the first attack would have caused war after 1945.

How can break the Pirate Party in the case of closed systems?

asks the last three minutes, the moderator, if the Pirate Party could do something to improve the condition. Then Ben Gunn:

"I do not think that parties are the problem, but the parliamentary system. [...] The Parliamentary system and the constitution written under impression of the Third Reich and especially to prevent something. Namely the arrival of a single party. And for that certain mechanisms are built. "

Gunn goes on to say that this system is dominated by the Americans. They believed that Hitler had come through direct democracy to power. And to prevent a second Hitler, the authors wanted in the constitution just no elements of direct democracy.

This had, however, the parliamentary democracy in Germany to a particularly large form of the "closed and self-referential system" formed. 40 years of political communication, the system would continue to be worn out and a great process of convergence around the 'alleged Centre'. Although the policy was about to Willy Brandt, Herbert Wehner or Konrad Adenauer not brilliant, but distinguishable today are the parties -. If at all - only for the actual election distinguishable. After that they will blend in again, exacerbating the sense of "broken" election promises.

fact that the "brilliant" politician with charisma and a distinct program does not include us, not just a feeling, but could also be due to the different occupations of the Bundestag and their ways in the policy (usually straight party careers) demonstrate. complement me That expressive politicians more likely to prevail in a directly democratic systems, also shows the surprising underdog success of Barack Obama, who checked in, one of the Parties, could enforce codes against Hillery Clinton.

for Gunn could to fix the "system failure" of the Federal Republic only by "more direct democracy" profitable [1] .

Luhmann and Liquid Democracy - my conclusion

I Think Gunn is right: Only with more direct democracy, that is a more immediate and binding commitment of those in power to the people, whose will can find greater resonance.

The here described to me by full implementation of Liquid Democracy (ie, including the resolution of representative, parliamentary system), probably would be the most radical implementation of direct democratic idea (and probably also the only technically possible ?). It would make parties not superfluous, but they take a monopoly on political opinion and decision-making and as you Antitrust weaken. But it's possible without abolition of parliamentary democracy?

implementation of Liquid Democracy within parties

Could the cash to help democracy within parties? Inner-party democracy could help to break the system logic of Luhmann? Gunn said that would be the "closed system policy" weakened by LQFB. LQFB would lead to more problems within the respective party. Interference would be permanently institutionalized in virtually the parties

question is whether it does not take place (as before) of the Board, speculate now has members in LQFB on the power-political implications of their demands were. Would members in LQFB perhaps even weaken their own claims, so that their party coalition viable? Or party members would even give up some claims? How much would dominate policy considerations of this kind makes the inner-party debate?

From my superficial so far (!) Observation in the Pirate Party, I do not feel (!) That the political power (consequences) debate would be dominant. The members argue mostly content, barely-making strategically. Often, the members of their ideas, beliefs and Views are so important that it does not involve political considerations.

I therefore see (among all speculation at this statement) to the risk of political corruption makes the LQFB participants as rather low. So I think the LQFB a good way to release the parties from the Luhmann'schen system logic.

[1] Gunn's criticism that may have a say in the Pirate Party and the "10% complete failure, in other parties are sorted out, "is here in an interesting contradiction. As much as I also have many 'idiots' upset, so it is always very well the phenomenon of direct democracy, it also a certain proportion of persons are obtained as 'confused confusion' could be described. As long as there are opinions you have to endure such an alternative system (The tolerance must end, of course, however, where bear false statements of fact (such as Holocaust denial, etc.), trolls, spam or offensive).


image sources: Academic , Penta Cast