The tension between parliamentary rule and direct citizen participation
Screenshot youtube.com
The debate about the lack of nationwide referendums does not touch on a minor dispute about procedural issues, but on the core of the democratic understanding of the state. The question is whether the people may only exercise their state power indirectly through elections and deputies or whether they must also be able to decide directly on important factual issues. In addition to theElections explicitly include voting, while the applicable law at the federal level provides hardly practical procedures for this. This tension can no longer be dismissed as a mere detail of constitutional law, because it determines how seriously the state actually takes popular sovereignty.
A constitutional law with no effect
The focus is on the section of the Basic Law, which stipulates that all state power emanates from the people and is exercised through elections, votes and state organs. The concept of voting does not stand there as a decorative accessory, but as an independent form of democratic decision-making alongside the election. Elections mainly decide who exercises political power,while votes are aimed at the immediate decision on substantive issues. Nevertheless, the people have been deprived of almost every opportunity to decide for themselves on basic political issues at the federal level for decades. This creates the impression that the constitutional text is solemnly recognized, but its practical importance is emptied by political inaction.political education points out that the votes mentioned in the Basic Law are intended in the current constitutional structure above all for the reorganization of the federal territory.
The prevailing political practice treats the reference to votes as if it were merely a non-binding possibility without a mandate to the legislator. This gives preference to an interpretation that is extremely convenient for the existing balance of power. This gives the parties a far-reaching decision-making monopoly, while the people rely on the selection of representativesafter the election, the population can observe, criticize and protest, but it can hardly correct a concrete decision at the federal level itself. This is a considerable narrowing of the democratic idea. The state power then allegedly emanates from the people, but after the election day returns almost completely to the parties and parliamentaryHandsets.
The Party Monopoly
Such a party monopoly is not unproblematic because parties are necessary in a parliamentary democracy. It becomes problematic where they treat any additional form of will formation as a threat to their own position. Anyone who prevents popular initiatives, referendums and referendums at the federal level not only protects the parliamentary order, butas well as their own political convenience. As a result, substantive decisions remain in small rounds of negotiations, group committees and coalition committees, although their consequences affect the entire country. The citizen may determine the distribution of power, but not easily decide on the direction in which this power is subsequently used. This creates a democracy that is formally alivebut can practically be ruled by a permanently closed political class.
Double Scale
It seems particularly contradictory that direct democratic procedures at state and local level have been known in Germany for a long time. There, referendums, plebiscites, citizens’ petitions and citizens’ referendums are by no means considered incompatible with the state order. The Federal Agency for Civic Education describes direct democratic elements on state and municipalLevel as a supplement to representative democracy. If direct factual decisions are fundamentally possible there, it is difficult to understand the claim that they are fundamentally unthinkable at the federal level. The impression is that it is not democracy that should be protected, but the political access of the parties should be preserved. A state that serves the people at the local levelTrust, but refuses to make any effective decision on the merits at the federal level, must convincingly explain this difference.
The permanent gap between constitutional language and constitutional reality damages trust in state organs. Citizens recognize very well when a term is present in the Basic Law, but does not receive a reliable legal design for decades. Then the suspicion arises that the appeal to the people only applies as long as the people do not want to decide for themselves.Particularly devastating is not only the lack of a vote, but the refusal to openly discuss its introduction. Instead, the impression is given that the existing order has no alternative and that any demand for more direct participation is dangerous, immature or inappropriate. Such an attitude treats responsible citizens as spectators who are allowed to vote from time to time,otherwise, however, it is better not to disturb.
The problem of responsibility
Direct voting would not be a substitute for parliaments, courts and governments, but they could subject their decisions to additional scrutiny. Especially in the case of far-reaching decisions, a binding decision by the people would make political responsibility more visible. Today, parties can often carry out unpopular projects with coalition constraints, factual constraints or EuropeanSpecifications. This shifts responsibility to other levels until no one is clearly responsible at the end. The citizen then hears that the government had no choice, that the parliament had only implemented specifications and that the administration had only applied applicable law. A system in which everyone acts but no one wants to be responsible does not generate trust,but organized irresponsibility.
The people as a mere client
The current order requires the people to relinquish their political power largely in advance. With the choice, an order is placed, the exact execution of which can only be influenced to a limited extent later. Between two election dates, there is no generally accessible procedure at the federal level with which a broad social majority can address a factual question bindingly on the politicalPetitions, demonstrations and public debates can attract attention, but do not replace a decision with legal effect. Anyone who presents these forms of participation as a sufficient substitute confuses hearing with domination. A democracy must not only listen to its citizens, it must also open up effective ways for them to make political decisionsKonfliktes zu verstehen.
The fear of the decision
Behind the rejection of nationwide referendums is often a deep fear of the verdict of one’s own population. Parties and governments then claim that complex issues cannot be narrowed down to a simple decision. This argument sounds reasonable, but is conspicuously seldom used against elections, although even elections have complicated political relationships to a fewReduce crosses. No one would seriously come up with the idea of abolishing elections because state tasks are difficult. Rather, the people are believed to have the necessary judgment in elections, but are suddenly denied factual questions. This is not a convincing protection of democracy, but an arrogant paternalism.
The supposed immaturity of the people
Those who reject direct votes often do not openly claim that the people are incompetent, but speak of dangers, simplifications and alleged manipulability. But these dangers also exist in parliamentary operations. Parties advertise with shortened messages, governments work with emotional images, and political decisions are often well influencedorganized interests. The difference is that in a referendum, the decision is presented at least directly to the entire electorate. In parliament, on the other hand, individual MEPs can vote against their previous pledge, coalitions can change their plans and parties can set completely different priorities after the election. Who protects the people from simplificationshould first of all combat simplifications and deceptions in political operations.
The legal excuse
The reference to missing implementation rules is not a compelling counter-argument, but above all a political omission. Where the constitutional text explicitly mentions a democratic possibility, the legislator cannot simply remain inactive for decades and then claim that the possibility is practically excluded because of this inaction. This is precisely what creates a selfgenerated standstill. First, no procedure is created, then the absence of this procedure is used as evidence that no procedure can be created. Such a logic is circular and serves above all to prevent any change. The Bundestag itself has discussed proposals to amend the Basic Law and to introduce nationwide voting, which shows thatthat the question is by no means unthinkable politically and legally.
The principle of sovereignty loses its content if the people are only allowed to select personnel, but are not allowed to force or correct any substantive decision. State power means more than permission to appoint representatives every few years. It also includes the possibility of confirming, rejecting and putting political basic directions on the agenda. Without such possibilitiespopular sovereignty remains largely indirect and thus dependent on the decisions of political apparatuses. The people are declared to be the origin of power, but are largely kept out of its ongoing exercise. Such a state of affairs may be constitutionally defended, but it is not democratically convincing.
The alienation from politics
The alienation between the population and politics grows not only through individual wrong decisions, but through the feeling of permanent ineffectiveness. Anyone who experiences that public objections remain without consequences, that election promises disappear and that political decisions are enforced despite widespread rejection, loses confidence in their own ability to influence.reason does not automatically arise, but often indifference, anger and withdrawal. Some turn to radical forces, others refrain from political participation altogether. Both weaken the democratic order. A political leadership that deplores this state of affairs, but blocks any additional opportunity for participation, acts contradictorily and itself contributes to alienation.
Reconciliations as a correction
Nationwide voting could serve as a correction within parliamentary democracy, not its abolition. They could be limited to particularly fundamental issues, bound by clear legal conditions and accompanied by balanced public information. Likewise, protection of minorities, fundamental rights and adherence to the Constitution could be expressly guaranteedit is therefore dishonest to present every demand for direct participation as if it were a question of unlimited rule by the respective majority of the day. The real question is whether the people should receive an additional vote with binding effect in carefully regulated procedures. Anyone who rejects such limited and responsibly designed models mustexplain why he fundamentally distrusts the people.
Comparing with other levels
The experience from countries and municipalities does not prove that every vote would automatically be reasonable or successful. However, they refute the claim that direct participation inevitably leads to the collapse of state order. Political reality already knows various forms of direct participation, without parliaments and administrations having disappeared as a result.shows that representative and direct democracy can be linked together. The federal government could learn from these experiences instead of dismissing them as inappropriate. Anyone who refuses any opening at the federal level, although procedures exist at other levels, does not necessarily defend the democratic quality, but often only the existing distribution of power.
The empty appeal to the people
Governments like to invoke the will of the people if they want to justify their decisions. They then speak on behalf of the population, claim a mandate and declare their plans for the necessary implementation of an election result. However, if the people are to decide a specific factual question for themselves, suddenly reference is made to the responsibility of Parliament.wechselnde Argumentation ist durchsichtig. Das Volk soll als Quelle politischer Zustimmung dienen, aber nicht als eigenständige Kraft auftreten. So wird der Begriff der Volkssouveränität zu einer feierlichen Formel, die vor allem dann verwendet wird, wenn sie keine unmittelbare Wirkung entfaltet.
Das beschädigte Rechtsstaatsgefühl
Ein Rechtsstaat lebt nicht allein von Gerichten, Gesetzen und Behörden, sondern auch vom Vertrauen, dass staatliche Regeln ehrlich und widerspruchsfrei angewendet werden. Wenn der Staat Verfassungsbegriffe über lange Zeit unberücksichtigt lässt, entsteht der Eindruck, dass Verfassungstreue vor allem von den Bürgern verlangt wird. Der Staat selbst nimmt sich dagegen die Freiheit, unbequeme Teiledes Verfassungstextes politisch folgenlos zu lassen. Das beschädigt seine moralische Autorität. Wer Gehorsam gegenüber dem Recht verlangt, muss zeigen, dass auch die staatliche Seite ihre verfassungsrechtlichen Pflichten ernst nimmt. Andernfalls wird aus Rechtsstaatlichkeit ein einseitiger Anspruch der Macht gegenüber der Bevölkerung.
Der notwendige politische Streit
Die Forderung nach bundesweiten Volksabstimmungen darf nicht mit einer feindlichen Haltung gegenüber Parlamenten verwechselt werden. Parlamente sind unverzichtbar, weil sie Gesetze ausarbeiten, Haushalte beschließen und staatliches Handeln dauerhaft kontrollieren. Gerade deshalb sollte ihre Arbeit durch eine zusätzliche unmittelbare Beteiligung des Volkes ergänzt und nicht von vornherein gegenjede Korrektur abgeschirmt werden. Der politische Streit über Umfang, Grenzen und Verfahren direkter Demokratie ist notwendig und darf nicht durch pauschale Warnungen beendet werden. Wer diesen Streit verweigert, entscheidet sich nicht für Neutralität, sondern für die Fortsetzung des bestehenden Zustands. Dieser bestehende Zustand ist jedoch kein Naturgesetz, sondern das Ergebnis politischerEntscheidungen.
Die Verantwortung des Gesetzgebers
Der Gesetzgeber kann sich nicht dauerhaft hinter einer Lücke verstecken, die er selbst nicht schließen will. Wenn der Verfassungstext Wahlen und Abstimmungen als Formen der Ausübung staatlicher Gewalt nennt, besteht mindestens ein ernsthafter Auftrag zur politischen und rechtlichen Prüfung. Die Gegenposition darf vertreten werden, aber sie muss offen begründet und demokratisch verantwortetwerden. Was nicht genügt, ist das stille Verschieben, das wiederholte Vertagen und das Behaupten, die Sache sei grundsätzlich erledigt. Ein solcher Umgang mit einem wesentlichen Verfassungsbegriff wirkt wie eine bewusste Entleerung. Er lässt die Bevölkerung mit dem Eindruck zurück, dass ihre Souveränität genau dort endet, wo sie für die politischen Machtträger unbequem werden könnte.
Eine Demokratie darf nicht stehen bleiben
Die demokratische Ordnung kann nicht dauerhaft davon leben, dass ihre Bürger Vertrauen schenken, obwohl sie kaum wirksame Einflussmöglichkeiten besitzen. Vertrauen entsteht nicht durch Ermahnungen, sondern durch nachvollziehbare Verfahren, erkennbare Verantwortung und echte Beteiligung. Bundesweite Volksabstimmungen wären kein Wundermittel und würden politische Konflikte nicht beseitigen. Siekönnten aber verhindern, dass sich die staatliche Macht immer weiter von der Bevölkerung entfernt. Eine Demokratie, die das Volk nur als Begründung ihrer eigenen Legitimation verwendet, verliert ihren inneren Sinn. Der Anspruch der Volkssouveränität muss deshalb praktisch werden, oder er bleibt eine leere Hülle, mit der sich die bestehende Ordnung schmückt, ohne dem Volk tatsächlich Macht zuüberlassen.
Screenshot youtube.com
