On Peter Decker s Presentation Wählen ist verkehrt! on 19 September 2013 in Nürnberg

Transcription

1 On Peter Decker s Presentation Wählen ist verkehrt! on 19 September 2013 in Nürnberg By Timo Schmitz, Philosopher On 19 Spetember 2013, just some days before the Bundestag elections in Germany, Dr. Peter Decker held a presentation under the motto Wählen ist verkehrt! (Going to vote is wrong!) and explained the relation between votes and politics. He also used the presentation to present the new book Demokratie Die perfekte Form bürgerlicher Herrschaft. Today, I want to review his presentation and discuss his arguments that he mentioned in his presentation. I also want to compare his arguements with my philosophical view and try to prove or to disprove them. Decker first introduces his book and makes clear: Es geht um die Demokratie, was sie ist und was sie leistet! 1. He makes clear that all the arguments he presents are more or less arguments from that book, related to the Bundestag elections in Germany. Peter Decker states that the elections taking place every four years in Germany are considered the highlight of democracy in social studies and political theory. He adds ironically: Ob sie stattfindet oder nicht entscheidet, ob der Mensch in einem Land lebt, wo menschenwürdig regiert wird, oder ob er in einer Diktatur schmachtet, wo das Leben keinen Spaß macht. Wahl oder Nicht-Wahl, dass unterscheidet legitime Staaten von Gewaltherrschaften 2. He then adds, if looking to the prctice of the process neither die Beteiligten oben, noch unten 3 are satisfied about it. During the time of election campaigns everybody know that the politicians are telling lies, while demanding the people s needs or serving for the people and questioning their opinions sheds light on so-called populism, so to say demanding the people s needs and serving them is regarded a danger for politics. Caring for the wishes of the people is therefore regarded problematic in the eyes of politicians and journals. Aber nicht nur von oben! Nehmen wir die Sache von unten 4, demands Decker. He comes to the conclusion that the citizens that go to vote are not satisfied about it, since they know that their decision will not really change anything. He then mentions that newspapers are concerned of the disenchantment with politics and therefore newspapers demand for motivating the voters to vote: das zeugt ja davon, Sie haben nicht danach gefragt 5. So Peter Decker means that in case that people even have to be

2 Timo Schmitz: Individualism between Moral and Virtues, Government and Religion (Part 6) -2- motivated to go to vote, in return it means if the vote will not take place, no one would really miss it. And those, who go to vote, explains Decker, are already disaffected with the consequences that a vote could have. During the election campaign the parties quarrel about little things making it a big thing, describing each others as liars just to go into coalitions afterwards, and the citizens are not taking politics serious anymore. Therefore, those people who go to vote state that they are voting the lesser evil or call it their civil duty (using a moral argument to legitimize their action, like I vote, because I have to ), however they all know that voting does not change anything or not much at all, because Wenn wählen etwas ändern würde, wäre es längst verboten 6, a proverb that is know in all spheres of the German society. Decker therefore emphasizes the contradiction between the theoretical appreciation and the practical disregard. So, people who go to vote already have the feeling that everything has just been a show, consisting of more or less empty promises made by the politicians. The most reasonable thing in an election campaign is the content ( die Inhalte ), the factual issues. Decker therefore wants to regard them at first in his presentation. He mentions that during the election campaign the politicians want to send the message that they are already dealing with the concerns of the people or that they want to deal with the people s concern in case that they are elected. The problem however, as of Decker, is that the voter is only a passive part in the whole process, while the politics are to change the politics that made them unsatisfied, which means a worker in the low-pay sector has to address his concern that he is low-payed to the politicians and he can do nothing than hoping that they will change it in his favor. The existence of a low-pay sector which the politics are to address earlier or later are the result of a failure of politics, however. Decker suggests therefore that a worker should organize himself and address the trade unions to do more pressure to fight against the misery. Peter Decker also complains that the politicians themselves suggest the alternatives, while the voter is passive again. He can only choose between the alternatives given to him, while he cannot give alternatives himself. He has to accept what is presented to him and then choose who to vote by the alternatives given. And those who want to hold an office decide the alternatives, therefore the differences between the alternatives are only made by those who candidate, while the voter is excluded. Decker also mentions that parties are only talking about the issues where they want to distinguish each other from the other party and therefore commonalities are not mentioned. I guess that Decker emphasizes this, since the commonalities within the parties are not automatically in the voters interest and the voter

3 Timo Schmitz: Individualism between Moral and Virtues, Government and Religion (Part 6) -3- probably could also disagree with ideas that most parties have in common in their election program, but which is not publicly discussed or not too known, since there is no alternative (given to this issue by the parties). He criticizes that the German chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) only advertised her politics with her success that she had, while her opponent Peer Steinbrück (SPD) only criticized the shades of her success rather than questioning her success. Decker quotes Merkel who said Alles in allem waren es vier gute Jahre für Deutschland 7, and emphasizes that the politician primarily does not stand for the voter s interests, but for the interests of a country or federal member of that country. This means the politician stands for the big picture ( das große Ganze ) and the voter has to accept the big picture as being in his interest rather than his real own interest. In case that the country is successful, then you are successful, too and therefore you have to be interested in the big picture since you are a part of it, no matter whether you really have success or not. Decker emphasizes however that the negative equation is correctly since the citizens are affected in case of a nation s misconception. This does not mean that the positive equation is correctly, but the voter is forced anyways to judge the politician after how he designed the big picture and the voter has to strengthen the politicians with their vote to get along with the big picture, while the concerns of the voter play no role. The opponent makes himself the voice of the unsatisfied to unveil dissatisfaction just to get into power, which does not mean that he wants to change everything. He wants to correct the problems that his party made 10 years before leading to the poverty and misery. Steinbrück does not want to cancel the basic politics concernig long-term unemployed that led to the misery and for that his party fellows ten years before were responsible, but instead just wants to put away the misery, instead of abolishing the basic principle that led to the misery 8. The opposition wants to get in power of course, and it works only by criticizing the government and claiming at the same time to do things better than the government. But the concrete differences are so specific and narrow that it is even hard to talk about a difference at all, since the goals are more or less the same, does Peter Decker criticize. But Peter Decker goes even further, he explains that nicht weil sich die Politiker über einige Lösungen von Staatsfragen nicht einig werden, soll das Volk durch ein Votum entscheiden, nicht weil es Alternativen gibt soll gewählt werden, jetzt heißt es, weil gewählt wird braucht es Alternativen 9. He emphasizes that the parties have to present differences, because the election is senseless otherwise, so it has to seem as if there are real alternatives, so very few differences within the parties are declared as the to be or not to be of a prosperous state.

4 Timo Schmitz: Individualism between Moral and Virtues, Government and Religion (Part 6) -4- So, all in all, you have to vote for your interests, but the ones you vote are not standing on your side, but on the side of the big picture (das große Ganze) and you have to accept in the end which of your interests are a matter of the new government and which are not, so you can just hope in politics. Decker remembers that there is a proverb in politology: In der Demokratie [wird] durch Wahl die Herrschaft bestellt 10 or in short Herrschaftsbestellung durch Wahl 11 and he reminds of the meaning if you are asking for an authority then you will receive one, and authority always means that they will force you to obey, which means people have to accept something that is probably not in their interest. This means you have to obey to something that you have not chosen yourself! Decker ironically adds that during an election campaign the focus is always on the poor and there is never the talk whether you can do more for the rich. This fact shows that the election campaign is made for those who have a reason to be unsatisfied and which has to be modified (possibly by the new government). The next argumentative level that Decker introduces is the question of attitude, since the parties don t have major differences in their programs, and so Decker argues that in case that people can t see real differences in the program, then they are asked to choose after their attitude. Therefore parties are advertising themselves with labeling values. Decker emphasizes, for example that the SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany) is advertising for solidarity and equality since the last 150 years and he thinks this image is cryptic. No wonder, the SPD has been in government already lots of times and still they never changed their ideas and they are still advertising more or less the same, when it goes to their attitude and values. So in case that people don t see their attitude in what they do in politics, then they should see it at least in their theoretical program and self-definition. Decker also covers the issue what happens in case that a politician is too flexible, such as chancellor Merkel, who is a real problem for her party (the CDU), since she belongs to the conservative party but also suggested ideas made by green politicians, liberal politicians and social-democratic politicians, so conservatives are asking where the conservative element actually can be found? There are even people calling her opportunist, just because she can t be defined by a single attitude or value. Merkel ist die unideologischste Politikerin, die man sich vorstellen kann. Weil das ist ja das Negative von Gesinnung, dass es ideologisch ist, dass es engstirnig ist 12, mentions Decker. And if people are asking for attitudes and values, it always also triggers the question of seriosity and credibility, which is also an important point in an election campaign. Because since people know that they have to vote for power, they are, of course, super-critical of whom to trust. Especially, because voting for someone legitimizes that the voter has to subordinate himself to the will of the politics. Submission therefore is

5 Timo Schmitz: Individualism between Moral and Virtues, Government and Religion (Part 6) -5- already assumed by the politicians! But despite moral credibility there is also credibility of representation. People argue which kind of image does the candidate have and is he the right one to represent a country. Decker underminded it with an example that was discussed before the Bundestag election. The next question is the question of competence. The irrationality concerning this question is the fact that all above mentioned questions are irrelevant, since the political questions don t play a role anymore. Concerning this category, Decker shows that a candidate to become chancellor has to have several qualities, especially recklessness in eliminating your critics and the will of power. This also means that the elector defines himself as the one being guided by those who have the power. After talking about the election campaign, Decker explains the institution of vote (die Institution der Wahl): Wozu ist der Bürger eigentlich berechtigt? 13. At first, the voter has the right to give his vote, while the vote itself is completely empty of content ( inhaltslos ). Only the vote counts, and not the arguments why one gave a vote. A vote therefore has only one reason: to be counted. A vote has to be free, since the voter has to decide himself by which person or party he wants to be guided and subdued. A vote has to be equal and actually, that s the achievement of the proletariat and class struggle, since it plays no more role whether you are a nobleman or a street person. However, the lobby has other ways to influence the politics, rather than with their votes. Therefore, an election is an event made for the proletariat to receive their avowal of being governed. A vote has to be secret and here comes the point. The voter has to be saved from reprisals that could take place in case somebody knows how he voted. The necessity of a secret vote shows how unfree the people are, added Decker. If a vote has the power of decision-making within the society, a secret vote will be the most abstruse. To find solutions together, people have to discuss and stand for their view to convince others and to know the views of others. The secret vote prevents this important possibility. So what does the vote finally achieve? Sie stellt was zur Disposition, und holt sich darüber eine Zustimmung ab, zudem was sowieso nicht zur Disposition steht und zudem auch nicht zur Disposition stellt 14, explains Peter Decker. The state says that it grants permission that the people choose a person for a mandate without asking whether the people want to have that mandate or want to be governed. This means no matter who you vote for, in the end someone will receive a mandate and seat whether you want it or not, and at the same time the government approves that you accept being governed without even asking whether you want to be governed since you only vote for the person or party who will govern you! This way, the state sytem is never questioned, since

6 Timo Schmitz: Individualism between Moral and Virtues, Government and Religion (Part 6) -6- the state says that you have to accept the state system with your vote. You are never asked to vote whether you like the state system or whether you prefer a better system at least in Germany! Decker mentions with some irony that dictators are to regret, since a dictator is always responsible for what he does. And when his people are dissatisfied he can only do two things: prohibit it or change it. In western democracies in comparision, politicians can make people dissatisfied because they always can say that they were voted and therefore claim themselves unresponsible for it. Therefore it can be said that the election guarantees the freedom for politicians to do what they like and what s in their interest, and not in yours!!! In the end, Decker emphasizes that his presentation is not meant to be an appeal to boycott the election, but instead is meant to show what an election really means and what the vote really achieves. I think that Peter Decker explained the meaning of elections very clearly and criticized the election on several levels. Since politicians in Germany are granted no imperative mandate (it means that after a politician is voted, he has not to follow any orders, but instead he can do what he wants, without the need to justify it), he has the power to govern people with his will and not vice versa. This means every misconception that a politician is doing and everything that he is doing against the will of the people is legal and democratic, while the system condemns other rulers, who are not elected, if they do the same. In my opinion Decker shows that the so-called liberal democracies are a way to suppress the people and legalizing oppression by a vote. We can use the word oppression since the government does not grant any alternative. We can not choose our state ideology, the ideology is already set. This shows that we have no freedom at all, since we have to accept the laws of the ruler whether they make sense or not and we are not allowed to change something, since the state does not give us the competence to decide freely. So we have to accept that we are governed and that s the problem. An election is not a way to choose our politics, the election is only to choose our dictator! We are free to choose our dictator, not more and not less. There are several factors that are proving it. The German citizens, for example, are only allowed to elect the Bundestag. They are not allowed to vote the chancellor. This means that the legislative is voting the executive. Same goes to the Landtag. Citizens are only voting the parties, so to say the legislative. The parties can decide over their coalitions as they want and then form an executive without the need to ask the people whether they want the ministers in their office, or even want the coalition. It goes even further. The Landtag decides who is sent into the

7 Timo Schmitz: Individualism between Moral and Virtues, Government and Religion (Part 6) -7- Bundesrat. This means that the second chamber, which has to control the parliament, is completely voted by the executive in the federal states. The voter has no influence on the second chamber. All, in all, the politicians vote in their circle, without participation of the people. The voter only votes for his local mandate to be represented and for the party he prefers. After this is done, he has no more possibility to actively influence the political business and has to swallow what is done by the politicians. I also want to add that this is not an appeal to abolish the constitution, since the consitution has some very important human rights and basic rights, that are definetly important and should not cease to exist. Instead, I appeal that the dictatorial elements in the consitution are changed, so that we really have a free constitution! This means that the constitution should grant the right that people decide themselves which system they want. So if the citizens want to abolish capitalism, they should have the right to do so! If the citizens want to have planned economy, then they should receive it! The constitution in Germany was created as a provisional constitution that was meant to be in use until a final constitution is introduced. Adenauer however used the temporal constitution as permanent constitution to persecute his enemies. The constitution says that it can be changed. But how? Again, the ones who can only change the constitution are those in power and those who are in power won t give their power away. So it s a circle! We can make a change together by demonstrating against the dictatorship. We have to enforce changes towards freedom by raising up our voice. We have to publicly question the dictatorial elements in our constitution to change it into a free constitution. We have to transform the society into a free society! The German people has already realized that an election changes nothing, so I can advise the people to organize changes themselves. Mass strikes and demonstrations, as well as denying oppression are the way to liberate us. We can refuse exploitation! But if you don t go to vote, isn t there a danger that fascist force comes into power? To avoid this, we have to fight for prohibiting neo-nazi groups and parties and keep sure that they don t rise into power. After Peter Decker s presentation, there was a huge discussion, that is worth to mention, too. There were several questions concerning the matter that countries where people can choose their system, elections never functioned. Decker emphasizes that the parties in Germany are only arguing to get into power, but the state reason is not questioned. This is the pre-condition that a so-called free, democratic election works. In countries where the state reason is questioned, an election does not work or the election does not statisfy the people (which can

8 Timo Schmitz: Individualism between Moral and Virtues, Government and Religion (Part 6) -8- lead to a civil war). I want to make an own example to emphasize Decker s thesis. There have always been two fractions in Ukraine: a pro-west and pro-russian. When the pro-wests were in power, the pro-russians were unsatisfied and vice versa. In 2014, fascists on the Maidan led to abolition of the pro-russian government. The pro-russian government was so popular that many people now want the Ukraine to become part of Russia, especially because many people fear the Ukrainian fascist regime that is in power now. The tendencies that the Ukraine will split in two parts was even visible after the elections that never tended to satisfy both parts of the Ukraine, but only one part: either the west or the east of Ukraine. In Decker s discussion, it was mostly focussed on Egypt, but Decker also mentioned that such problems occur in ex-soviet states (so the Ukraine as above mentioned is a good example, I think). Another guest asked whether a change of system is only possible in a civil war. Decker emphasizes that he sees the only way to change a system when a struggle of power takes place, but he adds that a civil war is a bad solution. He prefers the way people from the working class fought in the past: refusing to work for the state. Interestingly, there are huge discussions in a time when mentality changes, because there are two groups then: the old fraction which defends the decisions they have done before and the new fraction that demands for the change. In these cases, the election campaign has a real content, but the change that has to be done is often predestined before. Ideas, such as direct democracy or imperative mandates are ideas of correcting the things that work wrong recently, but they are questions on the level concerning the relationship between power and its consent. This level is very contentless, thinks Decker, since it only changes the relation of consent, but in the end, there is still someone who has more power. So it does not change the state interests at all. Decker also agrees that abstinence from vote changes nothing. But he also mentions that voting only changes something for the voter, not for the politics itself. During the discussion, the problem of finding alternatives and the need of discussing and defining deeper elements, such as state reason or capitalism, were mentioned. To put it in a nutshell, Decker talks about the sense of votes and elections and gives a deeper understanding. I think, Decker did it very well, and I agree on his argumentation. As Decker said, citizens should not trust in politics, but at first do their first step to change something, I introduced some ideas above, such as mass strikes and mass demonstrations to transform the system step by step in a real, true democracy, without eliminating the human rights and personal rights guarantees, since I think that they are most essential. But we have to change constitutions in a way that they guarantee basic ethics, but don t give the possibility to

9 Timo Schmitz: Individualism between Moral and Virtues, Government and Religion (Part 6) -9- suppress people. The constitution of Germany says that censorship does not take place, but in practice, there is censorship even nowadays in Germany. We have to assure that such things won t be possible in the future. We have to transform the society into a free society! (Since the freedom nowadays is not free enough, and therefore no real freedom). The only real freedom is my principle of Complete Freedom! Except of course, you find something that is better and less ideological than my ideas, but guarantees more freedom and does not cause Wordly Chaos! Reviewed Presentation: Decker, Peter Dr.: Wählen ist verkehrt! Der Stimmzettel ein Blankoschein für die Macht Vortrag und Buchvorstellung vom 19. September 2013 in Nürnberg, GegenStandpunkt/ Sozialistische Gruppe (SG) Hochschulgruppe Erlangen/ Nürnberg Notes: 1. Quoted from Decker s presentation. It s about democracy. What it is and what it achieves!. 2. Quoted from Decker s presentation. Whether it takes place or not [i.e. the election] decides, whether one is reigned under humanity or suffers in a dictatorship. Vote or No-Votes shows the difference between legitimized states and despot totalitarian reign. 3. He means neither those who are in power, nor those who have to vote for power are happy about the procedure. 4. Quoted from Decker s presentation. But not only from those above [i.e. those in power]. Let s take the thing from underneath [i.e. the people]. Decker first compared the meaning of votes in the eyes of those who have the power ( die da oben ) and then compares it to the views of the citizens (or from a politician s eye die da unten ). 5. Quoted from Decker s presentation. It s a witness that You didn t ask for it [i.e. the votes] 6. If votes will change something, it would have already been prohibited 7. To put it in a nutshell, it has been four good years for Germany 8. In Germany, long-term unemployed people are put into a social program called Hartz IV, which is regarded very controversial in the society, since opponents of the

10 Timo Schmitz: Individualism between Moral and Virtues, Government and Religion (Part 6) -10- program regard it as a way to cut into social welfare, rather than supporting social welfare. 9. Quoted from Decker s presentation. It is not the case that politicians are demanding the people to decide by a vote, because the first can t solve [important] matters of state; there is no election because there are alternatives, but there have to be alternatives because there is an election. 10. Quoted from Decker s presentation. With a vote in a democracy, there is the demand for authority 11. Quoted from Decker s presentation. Demand of authority by election 12. Quoted from Decker s presentation. Merkel is the most unideological person that you can imagine. And that s the negative point of attitude because it is [i.e. attitude] ideological and narrow-minded. 13. Quoted from Decker s presentation. Which rights does the voter have? 14. Quoted from Decker s presentation. It [the vote] places something as a disposal, to receive an approval of something that is not placed as a disposal and which is not set as disposal. Timo Schmitz, 16 March 2015 This article is Part 6 of the series Individualism between Moral and Virtues, Government and Religion. Reprinting for one s own personal non-commercial use is allowed.