There are already some books against populism. Why does it need your also?
With the book, I would like to initiate a debate: How can we strengthen democracy? Authoritarian is in the air, a Conservative tilt to the Reactionary, Liberal, and Left to remain on the defensive. The Democrats are neglecting it, to make democracy viable in the future. We need to take you to the height of the digital 21 Century bring.
you come from a patrician family, studied at the HSG and had to Post in the highest Management. Not be afraid to have too little traction for a defense of democracy? To misjudge the needs, which allowed for the rise of populism?
It is less the origin of the author as the debate about his arguments. And where you appeal to the right of the inequality: Three dozen people have as much money as the poorer half of the world’s population, 3.8 billion of them. The liberal mutated to a neo-liberal democracy, in the USA, the plutocracy, the rule of money. This does not concern only a lot of under privileged, but also many of the Privileged like me. More and more American billionaires demand to tax the Rich more best. Only one force has no trouble with the rule of money: Pluto the populists à la Trump, or Blocher.
In your book you defend Political Correctness as a matter of courtesy. The PC representative, you are inside as an old, white man, however, highly suspect.
Excesses of the political correctness there is. Much worse is the highly political incorrectness is, if Matteo Salvini refugees, dismiss as “human flesh”. The struggle of the anti-correct zealots lives by the Subtext: The Rich will be disadvantaged. The anti-racist, a racist against the white man. The feminist is worse than the Discriminator or harasser. But in your battle against the parity of woman and man, the populist nostalgic failure. The progress to equality is to slowly, but inexorably.
Unstoppable? Now you sound like the political scientist Francis Fukuyama, who declared thirty years ago, the unstoppable spread of liberal democracy.
To capitalism, there’s a front hand no Alternative, since Fukuyama was right. In the other point, he was mistaken: For liberal democracy, there are numerous authoritarian Alternatives. Dictatorship and capitalism do not mix well, see China.
write about all of the populist movements of today, from Trump about Bolsonaro up to the SVP. In Switzerland, many do not believe, however, that the SVP was different, not quite as bad.
The SVP maintains a safety distance to neo-Nazis. But all of the Reactionary perspective of human rights, and revile the institutions of liberal democracy. In the Bundesrat’s treasure “seven dwarfs are sitting in your word,” Christoph Blocher, the Parliament was a “waste of time”. The SVP puts judges under pressure, they wanted to undermine the European Convention on human rights. The party supported the gold initiative and No Billag, to national Bank and SRG paralyse. The “people”, however, the Reactionaries called, sent everything bachab. Our democracy is resilient – the American, by the way.
Staged authenticity: Christoph Blocher. (Keystone)
To copy all of the countries, Switzerland, and direct democracy?
all the Swiss trials and tribulations: The direct democracy of their learning ability, your sense of compromise excited me. It is the form of government for the digital age. Thanks to the Internet, the person has more possibilities of expression, but in many countries, little possibility of interacting on the policy. There is a voltage, which erupted in the Arab spring, as in the Latin-American protests, even in the onslaught of the yellow West. Direct democracy means the expression and influence to the Lot …
… but?
But the Swiss model can’t be transferred. Each country has a slightly different Balance between the three democratic institutions-Parliament, government and judiciary, and between the three basic democratic values of freedom, equality, and sustainability values. Behind the different cultures and influences stuck. After the Nazi-time, distrust of the German citizens was appropriate. Now the Confidence has grown so far that Germany continues to build on the system of direct democracy – in slow motion.
In Germany weibelt, however, it is the AfD for more direct democracy according to the Swiss model.
The AfD relies on a completely pervertiertes “Swiss model”: Almost any group that fails a vote in the Bundestag, is likely to ultimately obtain a popular vote. The AfD would like to turn off the Parliament. In the national Council and Council of States play a key role in our semi-direct democracy. Each country needs to have barriers of power by the people and of the representatives of the people, by the government and the judiciary exercised state. Direct democracy is not People’s absolutism, the democratic Switzerland may Swiss not of arbitrariness as once king Louis XVI.
you Suspect the AfD is a hidden Agenda?
The AfD-chef extremists, Björn Höcke, you may call the court notoriously a “fascist”. And fascists, authoritarian, and anti are democratic.
Tonangeber AfD: Björn Höcke. (Keystone)
you will see the democracy of the 21st century. Century, threatened by populism, but also by the climate crisis.
In politics, the environment is the weakest link. We need to make to the Participant of the democracy. That’s why I do in my book, twelve concrete proposals for an Eco-democracy.
A “Council of the climate wise”, as you propose it, would tend to lead in the direction of technocracy. , The panel would have the same effect as in the White house, the three-member Council of Economic Advisers, the modernised to its best times the US economy policy.
another One of your proposals relates to the voting age, to reduce it to 16 years – because of the “Fridays for Future”movement?
The climate of youth enlivens the democracy, she has my Affection and admiration. These young people are at least as well-informed and responsible as their parents. Why you should not vote? No coincidence that the figurehead is a woman: Politically, the Generation Greta is the most interesting since the members of the 68 movement.
icon of a movement: Greta Thunberg. (Keystone)
Why?
An ambitious modesty distinguishes you. Or, philosophically, Jean-Paul Sartre said: For the 1968 state: “We improve the world.” For 2018er Albert Camus, the replied is: “Bad avert, is even smarter than Good.”
this Is not something a lot of honor for the climate youth? They are characterized by alarmism, solutions you do not have.
The young people are inexperienced, but far-sighted. And challenge the elected politicians to assume their responsibilities. The Greta-Generation trusts the democracy, in order to avert the climate crisis. We do not have a duty to modernise our democracy, to make the action more competitive – in order not to disappoint the young. That’s why I dedicated the book to my grandchildren.
De Weck most spectacular proposals
Veto of the Minister for the environment: Of the environment, the Minister responsible for each act must stop.
add to this The environmental chamber: To the previous chambers of the Parliament of a, evaluated each of the draft law exclusively from the environmental point of view.
Council of the climate wise: environmental experts examine the ecology of relevant law drafts and publish, where appropriate, opinions.
footprint of the Bank: sets the maximum amount of allowed CO2 emissions, and distributes quotas to the companies.
Federal transport arenzhof: , He examines the new laws on the question of whether they actually serve the General welfare of the people and not special interests. (I)
Created: 06.03.2020, 06:15 PM
