Nach dem für die SPD durchaus enttäuschenden Ergebnis der Europawahl - 20,8% - rumort es bei den Sozialdemokraten augenscheinlich kräftig. Ein besonderer Auswuchs der parteiinternen Fehlersuche kommt vom Bundestagsabgeordneten Jörn Thießen, der über die Landesliste den Wahlkreis Steinburg - Dithmarschen Süd vertritt. Hr. Thießen fordert die Einführung einer Wahlpflicht inkl. einer Strafgebühr von 50 € für alle Nichtwähler, berichtet Die Welt.
Diese Idee lässt tief blicken in das Demokratieverständnis von Hrn. Thießen und in ein bei der SPD generell beliebtes Schema: Wenn etwas verboten ist, dann passierts auch nicht und alles wird besser.
Hrn. Thießen ist völlig zu Recht über die niedrige Wahlbeteiligung bei allen Wahlen besorgt. Er sagt ebenso zu Recht (siehe den Artikel der Welt) dass eine Demokratie ohne Demokraten nicht funktionieren kann. Da wird ihm niemand widersprechen, denn es gehört zu den Selbstverständlichkeiten der Demokratie dass man danach strebt dass eine möglichst große Zahl von Bürgern ihre Stimme abgibt.
Dennoch ist eine Wahlpflicht eine denkbar ungünstige Form der Erhöhung der Wahlbeteiligung da die Wahlbeteiligung durch Zwang erhöht wird - also durch die Ausübung einer Form von Gewalt (nämlich der drohenden Strafzahlung). Dies bedeutet dass man die Bürger an die Urne zwingt und das sehe ich im deutlichen Konflikt zur Selbstbestimmung, einem Grundrecht jedes Menschen. Die politische Selbstbestimmung schließt das Nichtwählen mit ein, denn auch das Nichtwählen ist eine Meinungsbekundung.
Und diese Meinungsbekundung ist durchaus nicht nur Ausdruck von Desinteresse an der Politik. Es kann genausogut eine Unzufriedenheit mit den politischen Kräften sein und das ist eine völlig legitime Meinung die sich durch Nichtwählen durchaus deutlich machen lässt.
Die Einführung einer Wahlpflicht bekämpft nicht die Ursachen, sondern benutzt einen Zwang um eine hohe Wahlbeteiligung zu erreichen. Dies ist unzulässig, insbesondere wenn es um den Kern unserer Demokratie, die Wahlen, geht. Anstatt per Gesetz die Wahlbeteiligung auf ein hohes Niveau zu zwingen wäre es von seiten der Politikn wünschenswerter auch die Nichtwähler wieder für Politik zu begeistern. Das bedeutet, dass deutlich gezeigt werden muss, wofür eine Partei steht und glaubhaft gemacht werden muss, dass sie dies zu erreichen bestrebt ist. Wie oft hört man von unzufriedenen Wählern, dass es prinzipiell egal sei für wen gestimmt wird, weil "die alle das selbe machen"? Das ist natürlich eine falsche Aussage, aber es ist eine Sichtweise die von einer nicht zu ignorierenden Zahl von Bürgern geteilt wird und darin liegt die eigentliche Gefahr für die Demokratie. Wenn es dem Bürger egal ist, wer gewählt wird, weil er davon ausgeht dass sich am Status Quo nichts ändert, dann öffnet das Tür und Tor für diejenigen, die den Status Quo zum Nachteil der Gesellschaft ändern wollen.
Natürlich ist dieser Prozess bedeutend komplizierter als das Erlassen eines Gesetzes, das in undemokratischer Art und Weise die Menschen an die Urne zwingt (mal davon abgesehen: Wer kontrolliert, ob sie da nicht ungültig wählen?). Aber wie so oft ist ein Gesetz die schlechtere bzw. garkeine Lösung für das Problem. Die Unzufriedenheit mit der Politik wird sich nur durch aufrichtige, wählerorientierte politische Arbeit auf allen Ebene bekämpfen lassen.
Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2009
Montag, 8. Juni 2009
ENGLISH: Observations on the European elections
As the BBC News summed the 2009 elections for European Parliament up: "Voters steer Europe to the right"
And indeed they did steer Eeurope to the right, in a public opinion that surprised me a bit. After the media's general attacks of "neoliberalism" and the "excesses of the market", as well as the craze to nationalize and bail out, I did expect a swing to the left. The fact that this swing did not occur, and indeed the winners of this election where far-right parties and the classical (economically) liberals comes as a surprise. At least in the case of the liberals, that's a pleasant surprise. The wins of far-right parties, as seen in the Netherlands or Britain, are more troublesome but I would be careful to call that a movement. The numbers they won aren't really large and the governments in both countries aren't exactly popular. But we should ask two questions. The first being "How come that people look to the right, to conservatives, for answers in these times - and not to the socialists?" and the second "Why does a large number of people go for far-right parties, and not for the conservatives? Can we win them back and how?". Both questions are of a great importance for the next general elections in the member states, or for the next European Parliament elections in 2014. I will devote further entries to these two topics.
The conservative party in the European parliament, the EPP, did maintain it's status as the largest parties but it did not win seats, in fact lost 15. That looks dramatic, but is explained easily. The Tories aren't a member of the EPP anymore. With Britain electing 21 conservative representatives to Parliament, it's becoming obvious why we aren't seeing a win for the EPP. So, even if we have a nominal decrease in votes for the center-right parties, that's skewed by this and some other similar factor. Not everyone sitting in the "No Group" section of the parliament is from the far-right.
What I think this election showed us is that the end of conservativism, proclaimed by many members of the American left and secretly believed by many leftists in Europe, isn't even near. The message is popular. But we need to broadcast it better. What I missed in these election season was a clear, conservative message from the conservative parties. In Germany, the election campaign of the CDU and CSU focused heavily on raising name recognition for the candidates and on laying a bit of groundwork for the general elections. While I absolutely agree that people need to know who is representing them on an EU level, people do not solely care about faces. What they want to know - and that needs to be brought out - is why they should vote for a party and there, we as conservatives need to bring across clear and strong differences to both sides of the spectrum. Why vote for the CDU or for the Tories and not for Labour, Greens or SPD? If these differences are shown, I am sure that higher turnout could be achieved.
Focusing on Germany's results, I see one thing clearly. Many people do not want the Keynesian approach we have seen from the governing CDU/CSU and SPD coalition. The FDP, a classical liberal party, won votes in nearly the same size the CDU/CSU lost them. That's really telling us my favorite lection of these election. The people do not buy the wrong condemnation of capitalism. They realize full well that we do not see the "End of Capitalism" as proclaimed by the radical left and leftists pundits in the past months. And it's there where we can win votes again. Conservatism is deeply connected to economic liberalism and it's there where we should go back.
And indeed they did steer Eeurope to the right, in a public opinion that surprised me a bit. After the media's general attacks of "neoliberalism" and the "excesses of the market", as well as the craze to nationalize and bail out, I did expect a swing to the left. The fact that this swing did not occur, and indeed the winners of this election where far-right parties and the classical (economically) liberals comes as a surprise. At least in the case of the liberals, that's a pleasant surprise. The wins of far-right parties, as seen in the Netherlands or Britain, are more troublesome but I would be careful to call that a movement. The numbers they won aren't really large and the governments in both countries aren't exactly popular. But we should ask two questions. The first being "How come that people look to the right, to conservatives, for answers in these times - and not to the socialists?" and the second "Why does a large number of people go for far-right parties, and not for the conservatives? Can we win them back and how?". Both questions are of a great importance for the next general elections in the member states, or for the next European Parliament elections in 2014. I will devote further entries to these two topics.
The conservative party in the European parliament, the EPP, did maintain it's status as the largest parties but it did not win seats, in fact lost 15. That looks dramatic, but is explained easily. The Tories aren't a member of the EPP anymore. With Britain electing 21 conservative representatives to Parliament, it's becoming obvious why we aren't seeing a win for the EPP. So, even if we have a nominal decrease in votes for the center-right parties, that's skewed by this and some other similar factor. Not everyone sitting in the "No Group" section of the parliament is from the far-right.
What I think this election showed us is that the end of conservativism, proclaimed by many members of the American left and secretly believed by many leftists in Europe, isn't even near. The message is popular. But we need to broadcast it better. What I missed in these election season was a clear, conservative message from the conservative parties. In Germany, the election campaign of the CDU and CSU focused heavily on raising name recognition for the candidates and on laying a bit of groundwork for the general elections. While I absolutely agree that people need to know who is representing them on an EU level, people do not solely care about faces. What they want to know - and that needs to be brought out - is why they should vote for a party and there, we as conservatives need to bring across clear and strong differences to both sides of the spectrum. Why vote for the CDU or for the Tories and not for Labour, Greens or SPD? If these differences are shown, I am sure that higher turnout could be achieved.
Focusing on Germany's results, I see one thing clearly. Many people do not want the Keynesian approach we have seen from the governing CDU/CSU and SPD coalition. The FDP, a classical liberal party, won votes in nearly the same size the CDU/CSU lost them. That's really telling us my favorite lection of these election. The people do not buy the wrong condemnation of capitalism. They realize full well that we do not see the "End of Capitalism" as proclaimed by the radical left and leftists pundits in the past months. And it's there where we can win votes again. Conservatism is deeply connected to economic liberalism and it's there where we should go back.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)