Vox populi
- vox cattle?
Posted by Spiegelfechter On 3 December 2009 @ 18:30 In Germany
The Swiss do not want minarets of the alleged claim to power Islam manifest itself architecturally in its Alpine republic. This rule is reserved to the demonstration glass palaces of the banks. The Swiss referendum to halt construction of the minaret is a good example of the shortcomings of plebiscite elements go down in history. Democracy can not be an end in itself and the ideologically disguised assumption if only the people would have to say more would be "better" policy should be running well in the final drop folder "nice, but naive ideas & rdquo ; be filed. ethics and paternalism
The people is not good or bad, it's not smart or stupid - it is simply the sum of all the good, bad, wise and stupid people. Who now asks the people in his opinion, is therefore also get answers that are not necessarily good or even wise. The mere thought that the answer to a question more is better, the more people you ask, is now even absurd. These ideas are neither original nor new - but if one refers to the question of form of government, one quickly gets into a dilemma.considered ethically a democracy can not be direct enough. As soon as more people join together voluntarily or by necessity, is the most equitable form to take a joint decision to always vote with the same voting shares for all parties involved. This works better the more homogeneous the community and the more congruent the interests of the community members. No one would ever think to install in a sports club parties to the decision-making and representation - each member has the same voice and the majority decision is binding.The rule of the majority can only work if you protect individual rights. It is now time not five wolves and a sheep can vote on what they would like for dinner. Larry Flynt
But even in the most common form of community, family, is the direct vote of all family members usually not the best way of finding common will. If father, mother and three small children would vote with the same voting power as to whether to savings from the rusty water pipes repaired in the house or if you prefer to fly to Disney World, the majority decision would be Disney World with justice but for the family's situation is not very reasonable.
us not fool ourselves - even in the context of referendums there are cases in which one can expect the majority of the population, a decision that is often limited to Disney World than to pipe rehabilitation. Wisely, therefore, avoid countries with their constitutional plebiscite elements in these topics. The wisdom of the masses is a chimera to believe that not even the earth itself. Now it was in Switzerland, however, just this exceptional case. Against the express will of all social entities, such as political parties (with the exception of the extreme right), trade unions, churches and the economy, the people's fears and prejudices free rein and voted for a referendum, the construction von Minaretten in der Alpenrepublik untersagt.
Furor helveticus
Der Aberglaube, dass die Schweiz ein reiferer, toleranterer und fremdenfreundlicherer Staat sei als andere europäische Staaten, ist ebenso unausrottbar, wie die Vorstellung, dass die Gleichung “je mehr Demokratie, desto besser Ergebnis” korrekt sei, und die Schweiz somit das beste aller Länder wäre. Nicht Minarette oder Kirchtürme, sondern die Kathedralen der Finanzinstitute demonstrieren bereits in ihrer Bauart die Macht des Bewohners und die Toleranzgrenze der Schweizer. Wer über das nötige Kleingeld verfügt, ist in der Schweiz immer gerne seen - whether as tourists, as money launderers or as a refugee. Thus, the Swiss were in the Second World War but to many Jews, however, provided even more Jews to the captors and murderers in Germany - on the gold could also wait until the offspring in the 90s. The Swiss are neither better nor worse Europeans. Probably would be if a popular paddling Sens oath in most other European States minaret ban was decided - in Germany, at least this would be the case. When parts of the policy whine about, they'd better put on your nose. The fear of Islam - and no matter how irrational - and was fueled mainly by politicians and compliant media. When Wolfgang Schäuble sees behind every tree, an Islamist and loudly worried about the fact that indeed in the mosque "potential" were sitting, one need not be surprised if the people should have at some point once believed. It isIf they manage that you ask yourself the wrong questions, they need not have to worry about the answers. Thomas Pynchon
The contents of this referendum is simply beyond the pale. Imagine, it would be prohibited to build more church steeples. This would be justified by the fundamentalism of radical Christians in the Bible Belt of the United States and of violent and non-constitutional passages in the Bible. And as if this is not already absurd enough, the minaret as the default argument opponents lead the tolerance ability of Islamic states against the Christians in the field. "Christians must build such a church in Saudi Arabia? No, so why should Muslims in this country are allowed to build a mosque? ". An argument that already in the core is such intelligence, free, that with those who say they actually would have more compassion. Iranians in Germany have to reckon with such a stoning, just because German could be stoned to death in Iran, too? Sudanese women in Germany must be circumcised? Americans in Germany may be tortured? China threatens the death penalty here? No, because we live in Germany and here is the German Basic Law. What Christians have rights in Saudi Arabia, Iran or other Muslim states plays no role for the question of what rights Muslims in Germany. Of course It was clear as the gospel truth that of all Turkish representatives again to make a professional insult, scream "fascism" and calling for a boycott of Swiss products. Turks are also Swiss are German - some of them clever, some stupid.
The prevailing opinion is usually the opinion of the rulers.
Costantino clock
Please no plebiscites!
have now the Swiss cheese. Referenda are binding and must now watch the Swiss policy, as verklickert the decision of their tots to the European Court of Justice. This is but a problem in Switzerland. In Germany, however, the urge is unbroken for the strengthening of plebiscite elements especially on the part of liberals and the Left. Why? Especially the ratio of the left is to direct democracy most bigoted. Are right or conservative positions majority opinion, this is the influence of the media and the populists. But if left-wing positions majority opinion, however, this was the true will of the people, whose democratic forces from the system can not be perceived. The right course, argue just the opposite - for they are left majority opinion leadership positions, the result left in the media and right-wing majority opinions - such as the minaret ban - people will, which is suppressed by the political system. Sure, the influence of the media and interest groups is probably the best argument against direct democracy. It is not very difficult to buy a journalist or a newspaper for a campaign to clamp. With a little change, catchy slogans, celebrity supporters and the right advertising agency, anything goes. Even if the - quite rightly - maligned parties to expand their basic legal contract fee, but rules apply to them. Who themselves - again quite rightly - it excites, that the power of lobbyists, foundations and the economy is on the will of the parties too large, should this one with the potential power of lobbyists, foundations and the economy in case of direct democracy compare. When Gerhard Schröder has ruled Altkanzkler even with "image, BAMS and telly", they would govern in a direct democracy only image, BAMS and telly - with the Registrar. Since it is still useful to remind the parties that they are according to the Basic Law does not master but servant of democracy.
Jens Berger
Copyright © 2009 Der Spiegel fencers. All rights reserved.
0 comments:
Post a Comment