To fail as the Weimar Republic?
The foundation of the day-to-party work in the party democracy are a few factions in parliament that either coalize or pull as closed troops against each other. The complexity of the views, goals, people’s life situations is reduced to a few high-contrast colors, discipline inward and relentless opponent in front – that makes friend enemy policy, which has already described Carl Schmitt as clearly.
Creditwurrity can not be won in a modern informed company so. Why should two MPs who agree with the smoking ban in guest institutes, even in questions of military intervention in Afghanistan and in the primal implantation diagnostics. This is not a cheeze plausible, which is why the people, not wrong, the impression wins, the deputies, who allegedly "only obliged to your conscience", In reality, the soldiers in the parliamentary struggle that are manovably manadized by their supervisors in the faction guide or in the government.
A counter-design represents the idea of "Liquid democracy", So a randomization of rigid fronts in parliamentary work. Here, in relation to individual topics and subject matters, majorities could be formed. Basic principle is that the individual deputies on a topic either themselves the necessary expertise or – according to his own basic setting – familiar to another, which then uses the voting content of the first. This can, too, can now decide whether he participates in the vote or passes on his share of another, more competent deputy.
The ghost of the Weimar Republic
Could work Liquid Democracy in parliament? In any case, and quasi now. However, Dafur had to happen in the Kopf both the political class and public opinion a lot.
In a picture of "changing majorities", As it is inevitably produced by the concept of Liquid Democracy, you may be reminiscent of the Chaotic Code of the Weimar Republic. The government was not dazzen from a government crisis into the other when the parties of the "Government coalition" Do not coordinate uniform to all decisions and legislative projects?
The goods only then the case if you were equal to the whole relationship because of each individual question. In normal life, no one makes, in a marriage, one can go to the pop concert and the other go to the cinema, without the same co-life entirely stands for disposition.
The basic law enshrines not only the conscience and fractional freedom of each deputy, but also the separation of powers. After this, a coupling of the government is not necessary to a majority coalition in Parliament anyway. It is important that the Parliament agrees to a chancellor or a chancellor at the beginning of a legislative period and then accepted the government members. The separation of powers then envisages that Parliament will declare the laws that this government then – with support of the interim ministries – has to implement. Then it can certainly be the one or the other law that the Chancellor does not fit, according to the Basic Law this is not necessary. It should not think laws, but implement.
Thus, according to the principle of liquid democracy, the parliamentarians with flebing majorities were able to advise and demonstrated and forwarded to the Cabinet for implementation. We were able to have an authentic, more believable policy, without even a word at the Basic Law to other goods – his wording had to be taken seriously.
But how is then chopped?
One could argue that the Wahler but clear programs of parties in which politics are the party, and not what different policies track the individual politicians. This is two ways to say:
First, people who have the same or related views have to have political ies continue to come together in the same party and support the same policy program. For these principles, a party is chosen, but that does not mean that the people who are elected there have been the same opinion in every single question. There may be as well as in Parliament as in the people to be reproduced by Parliament.
Second, such a parliament requires serious with the separation of powers, no more 5 percent hurde. Thus, many more parties with much differentiated and specialized programs were able to apply for space in parliament. Many people is exactly a policy field particularly important – and the specialists for this field they were able to elect themselves in parliament, so that they are among the other deputies for the fields on which they are competent to promote trust and majorities.