Until a few years, we were accustomed to our governments appeared closed. They felt the consensus required, that is, they discussed in their college until they could agree on a text with which they could appear before closed to the public. They said then: "The Federal Council has decided" or "the Government" has decided. In place of this search for consensus or by any acceptable compromise, now enters the dissent .
I personally find it a shame, but why not? - But: Such a major change in the way of governance also requires a change in style with the parliaments and the public to communicate. It must be called from now on: "The majority of the Federal Council has decided" or "The majority of the Governing Council has decided." Our executives are then mini-parliaments, as they say in the newspapers often? No, they will remain executive bodies, in evidence which would vote as if, for example, the SVP and the SP still had one more seat. This information is for us voters Voters important. It requires that the majority and the minority their opinion then founded. Just as the information is now running, but many of us feel it as chaotic. We know it often, which would like this and that the Federal Council, but what you want when it is called "The Federal Council wants"? Since Mr. Blocher in the Federal Council sits, he sees it again, either as in the Swisscom last November press ahead and bring his colleagues under pressure to act, or in interviews, how to make the last Saturday in the "Daily News" to realize that he faced a agricultural free trade agreement with the EU and in violation of the Cassis de Dijon - principle. However, it then this should each establish better not simply return keywords, such as that of the quality that we do not want to miss Swiss throw in the round. From Couchepin again, we know that it advocates for such agricultural free trade agreement and Mr Deiss, that he is very unhappy because it "break down shack" now lobbyists because of the Cassis de Dijon. If the Federal President Leuenberger to the new administration in Palestine takes the field, we know not at first, he now takes his or her opinion of the Bundesrat. Its opinion, which coincides obviously with the Federal President Leuenberger had to be filed later.
consensus and dissent are different species with deal of power . The consensus politician is ready for the community or the College to give up power, while the dissent man seeking power and makes them the core of his actions, because in the dissent, it is about to win majorities. It is not about finding other one for all tolerable and acceptable way, but to persuade and to vote, as the dissent politician to rule not only the affection of exclusive right to the truth, be objective.
power struggles are part of the policy, but the politicians are finding a consensus agreement or an acceptable compromise of all purpose and goal of his work, for the political dissent The purpose and goal of victory, and the means to the permanent power struggle. to compromise, because you do so at the sole possession of the truth feels, received only reluctantly and if it really is no other way. In the consensus politics, it was the rule that those in power largely on their choice of their parties resolved to devote themselves to the items of business problem-oriented way. They saw themselves as representatives of all Swiss and Zurich, of course, with a partisan tint. For the party of political dissent hoard "the truth", for they alone know what is good for our people. Because it also represents his power base, he represents them in government and not all Swiss, God forbid, because the left that everything would be in the "bottom ride," are indeed to all those Swiss. And already we are at another point of disagreement policy: it works with the friend - enemy - scheme: Here we the good, the bad guys there! The consensus politicians are team players. You are the team the whole, important that the power of people's own glory, even the future of history Mr. Kohl has done it in the story to take, and I got my Mr. Blocher it by the EEA - managed to vote also, as Mr. Mitterrand - a school example of a power politician - and so on and so forth.
power politics therefore need disciplined parties that stand behind them, in absolute, dissenters can be drawn without a tear, most recently the National Siegrist. Politicians need power cliques. And now I come to Councillor Fierz: it does not seem to understand or too little to build up her political career in such cliques. Because it no longer comes to their ability, as a team member to develop consensus solutions, but to compete in the power struggle that such insider relationships are essential, and the more impressive they are, the more will be unassailable. The natural base of power in a democracy would be his own party. Mr. Mitterrand and Mr. Blocher built to their own objectives specifically from a Although existing but still rather small on a tailored according to their masses and proper from. Now the FDP at the time a party before the next elections, trembling like the little mouse in front of the queue. She had neither the courage nor the strength to beat up for their Councillor and finally seize wife drove from their base. Perhaps they would have supported people from the SP by Councillor Mason? No, they let their wives fall in the governing council, and think seriously, that was sent election tactics, as if the people so cowardly attitude soon forget. It is believed though, that the memory of the public to take only half a year, but in such an important thing (??). One possible hope for the party I see in what I call the "Kindergarten procedures" already there, we learn not to mess with us the strong and powerful, but the more hearty and vicious flogging the small and weak. With Mrs. Fierz the Government and the party proceeded in this manner.
Because I believe are now called the media, because is not lit, the power struggle and at least one journalist well researched and documented, is Mrs. Fierz perhaps by the public as weak and not as in a power struggle felt alone and abandoned after the "Kindergarten procedure" written off. The Zurich cantonal government chalked in other women's Fierz something to what Mr Blocher has been sitting in the Bundesrat, to his routine is that he lets his writing from the Federal Council or Bundesrat this or that different views be known on television or proclaim. Mrs. Fierz was also resented that someone from their department head a copy to the public, which underlined their opinion. I was, as voters, grateful for this information because they helped to assess the whole situation better. What
Councillor Fierz also lacked for power politics is essential: Public Relations! Fuhrer woman smiles at us so frequently meet in the newspapers and the television that there is no well-Zurich, they do not know (her from the picture!). Mrs. Fierz, however, we saw so rare that there are probably many Zurich, which they did not know until now ...! Again, a field in which they might Bundesrat Blocher, as a fish moves in water, and other politicians serve as role model: Always be present again tilted in the media and do it to you! That you'll make only if you know the media people with a good mix of flattery and shocking, sometimes clothed, then repels. This gives you in their eyes the image of a man with rough edges, the image of a personality that makes you interesting and always good for a sensation. What good skill, knowledge and serious Dossier Work, if you do not inszenierst? Deiss did not understand that someone took note of how hard he worked on his dossier. By contrast, knows every Swiss Bundesrat Blocher that he is already intense in the first weeks of incorporating into his files and also those of other cabinet ministers. Deiss knew nor Councillor Fierz "and with the media to play."
The SVP urged us to this politics of dissent and power struggles. The SP, by the Left was, willy-nilly into this role, as do parties like the SVP in order to hold their people, enemies, best: mortal enemies! The other two major parties ponder convulsively an ihren Parteiprogrammen herum, was ihnen jedoch kaum etwas bringen wird. Die Menschen wollen Stars! Sie wollen keine Programme lesen, sondern sie in Leitfiguren verkörpert (personifiziert) sehen, wie uns auch das Beispiel der Parteipräsidentin Leuthard lehrte. Ich kann mir vorstellen, dass diese Rolle vielen zu Stars geeigneten Köpfen der FDP und CVP abgeht. Sie wollen Sachpolitiker sein, sie wollen schweizerische und nicht amerikanisierte Politiker sein. Nun hat aber die sich urschweizerisch gebende SVP unsere Politlandschaft bereits total amerikanisiert. Sie hat sie medialisiert und personifiziert. In bester PR – Manier besetzte sie ergiebige politische Felder: Unseren Nationalismus mitsamt Flagge, unsere Volksmusik, das Rütli, Morgarten, Marignano and William Tell. They researched our fears and occupied them, too. It occupied our fears but not limited to fueling it encourages and to her then, and especially its leader as a savior, as the "White Giant" offer. This country, from the left in the bottom hardly driven more affordable debt supplied by the puppets of the massive flood of immigration waves defenseless, from the Europe advocates the dissolution of nowhere a gigantic, by the superpowers and their quarrels of Europe dominated by the throat cast, is rescued of us and all of the above it! Hollywood sends his regards. The largest of its stars all have in some movie once the world or at least the United States or its president, saved from destruction.
I personally find that kind of politicizing sucks, but I was wondering, can we return? I mean, we can not return. We have to live with the media, and these in turn, make it the way we want. What I observe, however: people are interested in background information or in-depth analysis on the areas for which they are interested in, whether in sports, health and so on. Because it is in power struggles for victories, could such - as the interest in the Bundestag elections in Germany again showed - perhaps the good that interested people. It might be possible to build also analyzes the means by which the various actors in the fight drag, so analysis of the power struggle in itself, and perhaps building on background about the work that will follow. I do not know, but take me to think about it, or maybe someone of you has already thought about it?
0 comments:
Post a Comment