White Dots On Lips Not Herpes

Democracy 1.0 is not easy

first draft text of a section in the introduction to the problem of the status quo. Sources and citations are added step by step. If you have any additions, comments, sources or interesting quotes, please post in the comments, thanks!

The good old representative democracy has a hard time. From all sides they will be criticized. Nuclear charge is here that the parliamentary democracy in western Europe and American model but within its rules, "representative" but not (more?) represents the interests of citizens. Or that the wishes and interests of citizens to develop faster than the sluggish parties and multi-choice schedules can detect this. Democracy was in "crisis".

In Great Britain and the United States, where in fact there are only two parties, whose representatives in the Parliament because of financial lobbyists and campaign contributors are quick corruptible, the Kriese is particularly dramatic. But not only the voters are disappointed even the party base is often powerless. You can often have little influence on their political groups (whether federal and provincial assemblies) to take, even on key party committees (party executive) as such. Political scientists talk since the early 20th century by a model oligarichem power within the parties. In particular, the party executives have developed a policy-making authority for their party, they deserve neither to the party constitution, nor the Basic Law, or Political Parties Act.

Once the board made decisions are then set down. The control of the Board is limited to once a year held re-election on party days. But even there it is only very partially possible and has only partly to do something with the "political dimension" and the board members (see debate about re-election by Guido Westerwelle in the FDP).

Also on the compilation of the list and direct candidates have party members - despite the formal right to vote - only little influence. Party congresses are staged for television cheering events where open criticism is valid as a sensation, debates are interpreted as "weakness" and fighting candidates are declared as a crime already linguistically. The party base is discredited as "electoral associations.

Aside of all constitutionally and statutorily defined and regulated Party committees held the political power (and democratic?) Discussion in informal working groups, friendship groups and loosely organized circles. In interviews on television, especially in newspapers but then there is a more or less constructive debate that party wing, which plays a role in the definition of media democracy. "

However, this method is the honest, transparent and argumentative debate on the Stretched. This is particularly important for the voters - whether outside or inside the party - problematic. For if the real policies are made behind closed doors, in small groups and elite circles, how should the voters exercise its monitoring role?

addition, this model also makes the self-interest of each party member. Instead the question of whether his proposal is good or bad, he must ask yourself, who supports him? Where is he within the party hierarchy? How influential friends he has? Can he get the support of a member of the board? What I can I bid for it - the support of his state association at the next board election? What deals he can make?

As this is not new. Even the Greens have set up as anti-party party me and numerous regulations, such as the rotation principle, trying to intra-party power cartels . Prevent But in 1992 the Open member Dieter Salomon stated in his book "Green Theory and gray reality," notes that the Democratic base approach fehltgeschlug the Greens. On the contrary, the Greens were still more by elite groups out as the other parties.

The consequence of this development is a radical politics, which is only broken from time to time by populists and luminaries such as Ronald Schill or Barack Obama, but ultimately confirm the phenomenon. The established parties, meanwhile, run it to members. In this case, the desire to extremely participatory and co. Stuttgart 21, the protests for the nuclear phase, compared the censorship law of Ursula von der Leyen and the G8 protests in Heiligendam only the lighthouses. Socially committed young people are as active as, according to Shell study active as never before. But they run away and the parties engaged primarily in one of the thousands of NGOs.

This not only long term as a problem for democracy. Already missing the parties qualified young, who prefer committed outside the lazy party organizations. The parties are losing their social power and representation in many places can not even fill their own bodies.

solutions:

Possible solutions include the abolition of the parties and / or equal discussion of parliaments. Alternatively, the strengthening of direct-democratic elements (referendums, popular initiatives, cross-voting, cumulation, direct election of the BP, etc..) Demanded.

While the first seems to me like trying to throw out the baby with the bathwater, I think the second proposal as a secondary repair of the really broken system. Direct democratic elements as a last resort certainly not wrong, but does not solve the basic non-functioning of democracy. Therefore, the repair seems to me smartest solution.

And in this context is the concept of Liquid Democracy, which combines the advantages of direct and would like to join representative democracy, the wisest course. The software "Liquid feedback," an inner-party implementation of Liquid Democracy, is the Pirate Party in Germany first steps. This will be studied in this work.