I do not think the parliamentary democracy and direct democracy are a contradiction ( http://www.die-tagespost.de/ ; seats remain as of 08/02/2011 politically unsatisfactory).. Switzerland, it shows: parliaments and governments, too, the groundwork for most of what is happening. But: The Swiss can take the initiative when needed for additional action and they are always wondered whether that what the politicians plan because their tax money should be spent? If it comes to cost increases, have also the additional expenditure be approved by referendum. As a result, the politicians and contractors calculate much better in order to not have to face another vote and this leads to a genuine citizen participation and meaningful to more action. Even if want to let the voter turnout in Switzerland often poor, the result can be seen: when compared with something the Swiss policy and the German policy making from their railway!
direct democracy also has dangers, there also sent lobbyists can influence the population. But it is much easier for the lobbyists, the few opinion-MPs, ministers and faction leaders To buy, as a nation. Under the rope so I can see the danger of abuse of direct democracy to be lower than the risk that politicians behave in representative democracy as oligarchs on time and to implement only harmful because of its limited powers.
The "extra-parliamentary activist" Jochen Stay, however, commits a great error when he says that he no longer participate in elections. If any do that in many ways commits a big mistake:
first Direct democracy can be introduced only by the parties. To exert pressure on the parties, which prevent even this, to finally carry out a referendum can must choose the supporters of direct democracy, the parties really want direct democracy. And there are many more parties, the CDU / CSU, SPD, FDP, Left and the Greens. Who has not got it, did not understand democracy.
second There are parties, whose influence on policy is rejected totally. Who does not choose, it facilitates such groups hurdle for the election expenses reimbursement or even the 5% - taking hurdle. Every vote for a Democratic Party other reduces the percentage of votes of Communists and other extreme right-wing slant birds. Anyone who wants to avoid reducing their political influence and wants this tax money, which must necessarily vote.
third Parties have programs and candidate statements, or even acts of various kinds in her biography. By participating in the elections, I can develop groups and politicians who are closest to my ideas. This is a clear statement can also drag from the representatives of other parties, their conclusions and policy implications. A good protest vote results in more so than non-voters.
4th It exists because we can choose, nothing to with politics. You can politicians and some parties may be annoyed, but no policy is possible without the votes. And move to the policy for the better, you have to voice his constituents . Insert If all is angry only at home, nothing better and choose the established forces himself to power. Disturbed if the then all of extremists (see point 2).
It is in the direct democracy not about to put into perspective the place where political decisions are made. The Tuen our already established politicians. In the ARD "at Pelzer," Horst Seehofer said recently: "... who are chosen have to decide anything and are not elected to decide ...." ( http://viertuerme.blogspot.com/2011/02/horst-seehofer-csu-hilfe-der-regiert.html ). The place where political decisions are taken to be validated by the lobbying been, where our politicians have surrendered. But at least the Ecological Democratic Party (ÖDP) has displayed in its statutes that it can not accept donations from corporations and lobbying organizations. She wants the law by all parties to make binding and requests also may be perceived by the parliamentarians are not simultaneously a seat on a supervisory board. The best appreciation of the place where political decisions are made, would be a policy that is based on the cornerstones of the common good, subsidiarity, solidarity and personality of the Catholic social teaching. But what we are witnessing today is power failure fraction. For fear of the Left, many Christians choose to abdominal pain, the CDU / CSU, although they feel their servility to the repellent lobbyists. It is through the direct democracy of this could be the CDU / CSU to be a better policy. And the reduction of problems that leads to better policy would also groups, such as reducing the left or the NPD the electoral potential.
There are only a wasted vote in elections, that of the non-voter. It would be nice to understand that even the activist Jochen Stay, and all Christians.
para Felix Staratschek, Freiligrathstr. 2, 42477 Radevormwald, 02195/8592
direct democracy also has dangers, there also sent lobbyists can influence the population. But it is much easier for the lobbyists, the few opinion-MPs, ministers and faction leaders To buy, as a nation. Under the rope so I can see the danger of abuse of direct democracy to be lower than the risk that politicians behave in representative democracy as oligarchs on time and to implement only harmful because of its limited powers.
The "extra-parliamentary activist" Jochen Stay, however, commits a great error when he says that he no longer participate in elections. If any do that in many ways commits a big mistake:
first Direct democracy can be introduced only by the parties. To exert pressure on the parties, which prevent even this, to finally carry out a referendum can must choose the supporters of direct democracy, the parties really want direct democracy. And there are many more parties, the CDU / CSU, SPD, FDP, Left and the Greens. Who has not got it, did not understand democracy.
second There are parties, whose influence on policy is rejected totally. Who does not choose, it facilitates such groups hurdle for the election expenses reimbursement or even the 5% - taking hurdle. Every vote for a Democratic Party other reduces the percentage of votes of Communists and other extreme right-wing slant birds. Anyone who wants to avoid reducing their political influence and wants this tax money, which must necessarily vote.
third Parties have programs and candidate statements, or even acts of various kinds in her biography. By participating in the elections, I can develop groups and politicians who are closest to my ideas. This is a clear statement can also drag from the representatives of other parties, their conclusions and policy implications. A good protest vote results in more so than non-voters.
4th It exists because we can choose, nothing to with politics. You can politicians and some parties may be annoyed, but no policy is possible without the votes. And move to the policy for the better, you have to voice his constituents . Insert If all is angry only at home, nothing better and choose the established forces himself to power. Disturbed if the then all of extremists (see point 2).
It is in the direct democracy not about to put into perspective the place where political decisions are made. The Tuen our already established politicians. In the ARD "at Pelzer," Horst Seehofer said recently: "... who are chosen have to decide anything and are not elected to decide ...." ( http://viertuerme.blogspot.com/2011/02/horst-seehofer-csu-hilfe-der-regiert.html ). The place where political decisions are taken to be validated by the lobbying been, where our politicians have surrendered. But at least the Ecological Democratic Party (ÖDP) has displayed in its statutes that it can not accept donations from corporations and lobbying organizations. She wants the law by all parties to make binding and requests also may be perceived by the parliamentarians are not simultaneously a seat on a supervisory board. The best appreciation of the place where political decisions are made, would be a policy that is based on the cornerstones of the common good, subsidiarity, solidarity and personality of the Catholic social teaching. But what we are witnessing today is power failure fraction. For fear of the Left, many Christians choose to abdominal pain, the CDU / CSU, although they feel their servility to the repellent lobbyists. It is through the direct democracy of this could be the CDU / CSU to be a better policy. And the reduction of problems that leads to better policy would also groups, such as reducing the left or the NPD the electoral potential.
There are only a wasted vote in elections, that of the non-voter. It would be nice to understand that even the activist Jochen Stay, and all Christians.
para Felix Staratschek, Freiligrathstr. 2, 42477 Radevormwald, 02195/8592
0 comments:
Post a Comment