Kurz : the State

Kurz: the state

"... and the state is not a dream, but remains like my pillow, a state that shapes me, the threads, the torn and world-managing state that moves through me and me ... ", Blumfeld

At a time when finance is deciding everything, our politicians only speak of democracy out of hypocrisy. The institutions of democracy are left, their rituals. We hold elections, just as some indigenous peoples performed rain dances. Did your dances influence the course of the clouds?

Franco «Bifo» Berardi

"The efficiency of the system makes individuals unfit to recognize that it contains no facts that do not convey the repressive power of the whole. ”Herbert Marcuse

It cannot and must not be assumed that our dear Federal Chancellor Sebastian Kurz knows little or nothing about the state. So here is an explanation. It won't help, but you can try it.

The government is obviously made up of ordinary and unsanctified men and is therefore a legitimate object of criticism and even contempt. If your own party is in power, it can be assumed that things are moving safely enough, but if the opposition is in there, all security and honor have clearly fled the state. In practice, however, the Democrat does not treat his elected citizen in the least with the respect of a king, and the sophisticated citizen does not honor dignity even when he finds it. The Republican state has almost no traps to address the feelings of the common man. What it has is of military origin, and in an unmilitary era, even military traps have rarely been seen.

What is the state Can our Chancellor answer that? We don't know and maybe that's a good thing.

Aristotle distinguishes between six forms of government: the monarchy (sole rule), the aristocracy (rule of the best) and politics as good forms as well as their degenerate counterparts tyrannis, oligarchy (rule less) and democracy (defined by him as rule of the free-born poor; to Differentiation from today's concept of democracy also known today as ochlocracy). Aristotle believes that a good form of government tends to degenerate, this degenerate form gives rise to the next good form, etc. In order to avoid this cycle, he advocates a form of mixed constitution between democracy and oligarchy, which he also calls politics.

• Monarchy → Tyrannis,

• Tyrannis → aristocracy,

• Aristocracy → oligarchy (or plutocracy as a sub-case),

• Oligarchy → politics,

• Politics → democracy or ochlocracy,

• Democracy → Monarchy ...

The state needs three things that make it a state. These are:

1. the national territory, this is a geographically defined area of ​​the earth's surface;

2. the state people, that is the sum of the nationals;

3. State power, a stable government that exercises its violence to the max.

What is the Republic of Austria now? The Republic is a federal state made up of nine independent federal states. The federal character is a constitutional principle that can only be changed on the basis of a referendum.

The state population is initially the population of the state, i.e. all persons who have a permanent residence in the state territory, regardless of their (ethnicity, origin). This is the total of those who can participate in the status activus, i.e. those who can actively participate in the state (for example through elections).

State authority in the Federal Republic of Austria is divided between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. .

In the legislative field, the so-called legislative violence, the organs of the Bundestag and Bundesrat must therefore be mentioned. This violence therefore lies with parliament as the leading authority in democracy.

In the area of ​​the executive, the so-called executive power, the federal government deserves special mention. It is headed by the Federal Chancellor, who sets the policy guidelines.

The Federal President is also a head of state as head of state, but has a more representative function.

The Federal Constitutional Court and the five highest federal courts are responsible for the judiciary, the so-called judicial power.

In contrast to a centrally organized state, legislation and enforcement in a federal state are divided between the federal and state governments. The state laws and municipal law are decided by the state parliament. The state governments take care of the state administration. Citizens of a federal state also have the option of influencing state legislation within the framework of direct democracy (https://www.parlament.gv.at/PERK/BOE/). .

Austria is a federal state with nine federal states (Burgenland, Carinthia, Lower Austria, Upper Austria, Salzburg, Styria, Tyrol, Vorarlberg and Vienna). The federal principle means: The state tasks are divided between the federal and state governments (parliament explains the state of Austria, the federal principle).

How is Austria structured? The structure of Austria is characterized by the following elements:

The federal and state governments have their own legislation.

The federal and state governments have their own enforcement.

The federal states participate in the administration of the federal government through the indirect federal administration.

The federal and state governments each have their own financial economies, i.e. their own budget. You can also collect your own taxes. However, essential taxes such as income tax, VAT etc. are only levied by the federal government. The federal states receive funds from the entire federal tax income as part of the financial equalization. This is only valid for a few years and is renegotiated regularly.

The federal principle results not only from Art. 2 of the Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG), but also from other provisions of the B-VG, through which the federal states are granted a relatively autonomous state legislation and state administration (The federal structure of Austria).

That was a very small extract of what a Chancellor should know. Now we will talk about what our Chancellor does not know and does not want to know: the constitution.

What does Chancellor Sebastian Kurz know about the constitution? Here is a small excerpt:

Had Kurz []made it clear that he does not plan to repair the hastily adopted laws and regulations, which may not be constitutional, because they should not apply in the long run anyway. Until a review by the highest courts has taken place, "they will no longer be in force," said Kurz(April 14, 2020 , Small newspaper)

The deputy SPÖ club boss Jörg Leichtfried found it "disconcerting when a head of a government cares so little about the rule of law and legal compliance and maintains such sloppy dealings" (just there)

The rule of law does not have to be upheld, even in difficult times. That's where we need legal certainty!A head of government in particular has to be very careful with the constitution, fundamental rights and freedoms. Nobody is allowed to move outside the law! "Chancellor Kurz is obviously of the opinion that the ... measures with the constitution do not have to be taken too precisely," said even FPÖ club chairman Herbert Kickl (Die Tagesstimme, April 15, 2020). Apparently the beauty of the constitution had lost its appeal for President Van der Bellen at the moment when it no longer seemed to be particularly important to the Chancellor. Is that acceptable? Isn't there always a need to deal responsibly with the constitution and with the fundamental rights of citizens?

Since March 16, public life in Austria has been largely silent: exit restrictions, all bars and most shops apply were closed. Austria announces a new timetable. The Austrian federal government had informed the citizens about how to proceed in the struggle. The first easing of the drastic measures was soon announced.

Briefly explained that the tracking of the population was also being considered. When asked whether a mandatory app would come to register contacts, Kurz replied: “We are working on this question. The basic problem is: can I remember who I have had contact with in the past ten days? I could not do it. Nobody will know who he was sitting next to on the bus. "The Austrian government also thought about solutions for people who do not have a smartphone:" There will be an opportunity to develop a key ring. The majority of Austrians support this initiative. Track, test, isolate. ” In addition to a tracking app, tests and the isolation of infected people should also be part of the strategy to curb the spread (Mercury, May 11, 2020).

Are these exit restrictions mentioned legal? The restrictions on freedom that have been put in place are problematic from two points of view in particular: many measures lack an explicit oneBasis of authorization; and it is questionable whether they are proportionate. The government uses the Infection Protection Act (IfSG) as a basis for authorization, according to which various measures can be ordered, for example a quarantine, but only in connection with a specific infection or suspected infection. Even according to the police and regulatory law of the federal states, which contains the legal basis for official measures to avert danger, a ban can only be issued in certain individual cases to enter certain places. However, entire areas cannot be blocked on the basis of these laws. Finally, the civil protection law of the federal states offers the possibility, if a disaster case is declared, to take certain measures - curfews are not regulated there either. In the absence of a specific basis for intervention, the question arises whether exit and contact restrictions can be based on a so-called “general clause”, that is, a very generally formulated interception standard. In the Infection Protection Act there is a general clause for "necessary protective measures". However, there are important reasons against this general clause being sufficient for this. In the case of interventions in fundamental rights that are as extensive as they are currently, a special legal basis with precise requirements is required. They are necessary if there is no milder agent with the same effect. However, the legal judgment about the current and upcoming fundamental rights interventions faces the same problem as politics: We do not know how many new infections our health system can endure per day. Thousand? Hundred? Fivethousand? How long can there be how many? And we also don't know which measures can actually contain the pandemic most effectively. With so much uncertainty, the law of politics leaves a lot of room for judgment.

The measures must bring something, otherwise they are illegal. A suggestion from the Federal Ministry of Health had to stop at this barrier: the authorities should be able to request the location data of the cell phones of infected people, which were determined via radio cells, in order to identify contact persons.

The restrictions on freedom must also be coherent. For example, those who have been at their second home for months must not be forced to return to their home country if this increases the risk of infection. Therefore, all bans must allow exceptions to do justice to the individual case (Fundamental Rights: Questions and Answers, Society for Fundamental Rights, March 2020).

With an empowerment law, the parliament gives the government extraordinary powers. Here is an example: An article in the B-VG was repealed, according to which every overall change to the federal constitution had to be subjected to a referendum. Furthermore, the new constitution adopted by emergency ordinance was declared to be the current federal constitution. The functions of the National Council and the Federal Council have been declared extinct. All powers (particularly legislation) have been delegated to the Federal Government. To also regulate the transition to the new constitution and to determine when the constitution became effective in 1934.

We want to leave it at that.

So what is the constitution?

Today, the constitution refers to special and very special laws that form the basis for state action and regulate the establishment and exercise of political rule. For example, a constitution contains the rules for how a state is structured and who can pass laws (Parliament explains: The federal constitution, what is a constitution?).

The criticism of the measures of thisGovernment is growing. Lawyers complained that some measures violated the constitution. It's about trifles, like the restriction of almost all civil liberties - from freedom of movement to freedom of travel to economic freedom. By the stroke of a pen, innumerable livelihoods were destroyed.

Breach of the Constitution - so what?

Chancellor announced that because of such a bit of a breach of the constitution, please nobody should puff up and make important. Everyone stopped and stopped. Federal President Van der Bellen, as well as the Green Kolitionpartner. What more do you need?

With its rules, a constitution expects everyone who has functions and responsibilities in the state. The fulfillment of these expectations cannot be taken for granted - for example, that the Parliament discusses laws in detail or that judges are independent. Therefore, these expectations need special protection. And so everything that is decided by Parliament and what the government does must also be measured against the constitution. It must be checked whether what is happening in politics and in the state corresponds to the rules that the citizens have drawn up for it. The constitution must therefore be accepted by all citizens of a state, but above all by the political parties and their representatives in parliament. It should be the basis of their political actions.

The constitution should ensure stability. It also means that constitutions cannot be changed easily.

In Austria, the constitution can only be changed if at least half of the members of the National Council are present at the vote and two thirds of them support the change. In addition, constitutional laws must be described as such very precisely. Some constitutional laws can only be changed with the approval of the Federal Council. If the basic principles of the Federal Constitution are changed, even the people have to vote on it (https://www.parlament.gv.at/PERK/VERF/WAS/index.shtml).

Maybe that helps a little Mr. Kurz!

Who advises Sebastian Kurz?

The journalist Knittelfelder explains Kurz and his politics based on the closest colleagues. And unlike others, he knows exactly what he is writing about: he has known the game for years. The hardest currency in politics is particularly important: loyalty. It has grown over the years in the team around the Chancellor and is unbreakable. Using the example of individual protagonists, it is demonstrated that even consultants whom the turquoise party leader blindly trusts today had to work long and hard to get their stand. Kurz's team is about ideology-free careerists or a new "Buberl party". According to Knittelfelder, it is a "partly ore-conservative group with political hardliners", which in individual cases combines a pronounced dislike for social democracy.

This can be exemplified on the "right hand" of Chancellor, Head of Cabinet Bernhard Bonelli. He is described as a strictly religious traditionalist, who maintains views that are sometimes “incapable of a majority in society”. The boss of the short think tank, recently hyped by interviews, Antonella Mei-Pochtler, omitted Knittelfelder in the description of the narrowest circle ("Arch Conservative Troop": Who advises Sebastian Kurz).

Long-standing business consultant Antonella Mei-Pochtler is little known to the general public. The 59-year-old is one of the Chancellor's closest circle and has advised Kurz during his time as Secretary of State for Integration. In the election campaign, she helped Kurz with questions of economic policy. Now their sphere of activity has been drastically expanded. In the Federal Chancellery, it is supposed to establish the Think Austria think tank. The problem: Nobody knows exactly what ideas the head of government should hatch (Zeit Online).

In short and democracy. The good man doesn't have much to do with her. Democracy is different for him than for most other people. The entire ÖVP parliamentary club is silent on the Orban dictatorship. It is not surprising. The Orbans Fidesz party, like the ÖVP, is part of the European People's Party and Kurz is a close ally of Viktor Orban. "I honestly don't have the time to deal with Hungary," said Kurz. However, he did have time to take action against Maduro, his President of Venezuela. Kurz sent his support to the coup leader and US straw man Juan Guaidó and the US government. The situation in Venezuela is complicated. In Hungary the matter is clearer: Orban has eliminated parliament. Kurz has no time for that. He has time, to support the US in its imperialist struggle for Venezuela. In short, the US would accept to put a bounty on a foreign head of state, a democratically elected one.

Sebastian Kurz brought the ÖVP to the government in 2017 after he pushed Mitterlehner out of office. He ruled with the help of the right-wing populist FPÖ. The political pensioner Mitterlehner was previously vice chancellor in a government with the social democratic chancellor. This briefly disturbed strategic intrigues to take over the power in the ÖVP itself. Kurz had built up parallel structures that would have made the Kern / Mitterlehner government's success impossible, according to the former ÖVP head. Kurz can do intrigue well, he has experience in that. It reads like mockery. Sebastian Kurz on twiiter: #Democracy is celebrating its 100th birthday in Austria this year. Especially on the international day of democracy it becomes clear that it is the basis for our European way of life.

Democracy is not easy. It's difficult Is that still a democracy? Not an easy question and certainly not an easy answer. A democracy has to meet some basic requirements, which are not only written down in the constitution, but also have to be implemented by politicians and authorities in everyday political life. 1. Guarantee of the fundamental rights of every individual towards the state, towards social groups and towards other individuals. 2. Division of powers between the state organs government [executive], parliament [legislature] and courts [judiciary]. 3. General and equal voting rights. 4. Freedom of expression, press and broadcasting. 5. Freedom of association, freedom of assembly and demonstration.

There are also a large number of politically disaffected and a small but active minority of people who either fundamentally question democracy. Is this really existing form of democracy an useless implementation or maybe a fake label? Winston Churchill would have put it like this: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried from time to time." That may be so. We don't know a better form of government.

And we have short. On May 3, the journalists' union and the opposition massively criticized the government. Briefly responded in a press release: The government is "unreservedly" committed to freedom of the press as "an essential cornerstone of our democracy".

Henrike Brandstätter, Neos, complained about the exclusion of foreign correspondents from various press conferences: "Chancellor Kurz emulates Viktor Orban's authoritarian understanding of the media. With inflated PR departments in the ministries, he wants to favor the balance of power over the media for himself." She demanded "more journalistic freedom in Austria "and" finally an information freedom law “. Representatives of the GPA-djp union had voiced criticism: "After the violent attacks under turquoise blue, which not least led to a two-fold crash in the international press freedom ranking from 11th to last 18th place, press freedom is also under Turquoise green continues to be endangered, "warned Eike-Clemens Kullmann and Gerhard Moser. With" great concern " that there are press conferences with a limited number of journalists or that media representatives are even excluded. On the other hand, it can be seen that "promoting benevolent reporting through a club of advertisements." The government's approach is not exactly democratic-friendly.

And what about fundamental rights? If you want to restrict fundamental rights, in a state of emergency this is permissible, if proportionality is maintained, clear legal texts are required. "Legal security must apply to the citizens, what applies and what does not," said Horn. "It is not specifically prohibited to stay in other private households," said Horn, for example, about family reunions, which are not explicitly regulated in any ordinance or decree. In the decree of the first measure law of March 16, only entering public places was prohibited. "Such a ban would also be unconstitutional. I think that's why they chose the way to put it rather vaguely and vaguely." Horn does not leave good hair on the "mask requirement" either. This arises from a decree, i.e. a de facto directive from the Ministry of Health, on hygiene in retail. This internal act of administration per se has no consequences for the citizen. "It instructed retailers to provide masks and to issue them. If this can really be prescribed for shops, I can go there without a mask. If there is no mask for me, I go to the shop without a mask." Mayer also missed the penchant for clearly formulated standards. "They keep saying that the children are not allowed to visit grandma, but then you don't dare to say that clearly," emphasized the professor at the University of Vienna. "What they want is okay and will be necessary, but somehow the courage is missing." The symbol was the now withdrawn "Easter Decree" by the Ministry of Health. It issued instructions to prohibit larger gatherings "in closed rooms". All that came out was confusion. Mayer said the decree was "vague" and added: "What you want is not possible with a decree. If you don't want Easter meals to take place, then you have to set it out in a regulation." The Ministry of Health Minister Rudolf Anschober (Greens) replied the following: "It must be made clear that a decree is addressed to the governors (and subsequently to the district administrative authorities) and is written in a legal language that is correspondingly complex.

"Criticism understood," wrote Anschober. The decree, which went to the governors on April 2, was initially interpreted differently. Specifically, it stated that "all meetings in a closed room in which more than five people who do not live in the same household take part must be prohibited until further notice when this decree is received". Traffic restrictions also continued to apply. There were only four exceptions. "Of course, the police will not spy on apartments. But the decree provides the legal basis for stopping parties. And it is an appeal against all kinds of private Easter celebrations," wrote the Minister of Health.

Kurz and Vice Chancellor Kogler rejected allegations that the government had deliberately fueled fears in the crisis. "Our strategy was always clear because we always act responsibly," said Kurz. He believed that it was right not to "sweep dangers under the carpet".The opposition had made allegations of terrorism because the minutes of a government and experts meeting on March 12 spoke of a game of fear. Briefly rejected this: "Since many experts have drawn attention to the fact that the flu is not here, we (...) have made this publicly known." It was right to make the population aware of the danger. "The result is clear: Today we are much better off in Austria than in many other countries." On whose behalf the expert paper from the end of March, in which up to 120,000 possible deaths in Austria were mentioned, Kurz remained vague. "There were countless experts, and not everyone commissioned anyone." Some papers "I know, some not". It would have been among experts " very different assessments "passed." Some experts do this on behalf or at the request of the government - or simply because it is their job. The task of politics is to bring it all together, "said Kurz.

The government is obviously made up of ordinary and unsanctified men and is therefore a legitimate object of criticism and even contempt. When your own party is in power, it can be assumed that things are moving safely enough. but if the opposition is in there, all security and honor have clearly fled the state. But you don't tell yourself like that. What they think is just that there are rascals that can be made out of a very practical machinery of offices and functions that they take for granted.

"When asked about the concrete paper: We were in contact with a lot of mathematicians and simulation experts. Yes, the theses sometimes contradicted each other very strongly. Some turned out to be wrong, some as partly wrong, some as correct. That's just the way it is." On the previous day, Anschober had dismissed responsibility for the paper: "Well, I didn't commission the one expert paper," he said.

The consequences have hit Austria harder than ever: 550,000 unemployed, 1.3 million in short-time work. Many face nothing. The promised help does not arrive or comes too late and is often just the 'drop in the bucket'. The government took the measures taken as inevitable if one did not want to put up with a hundred thousand deaths. Panic was created, instead of an explanation, and targeted measures were taken. A leaked protocol from the advisory staff of Health Minister Anschober made the headlines. This confirmed what attentive observers had been diagnosing and criticizing for weeks: In implementing the measures, Kurz relied on "obedience through fear" instead of education and common sense. This should make it easier for the population to lose income, economic damage, unemployment and lack of educational opportunities for children to sell. According to his own statement, Kurz briefly listened to the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It was only a conference call with him and several EU premiers on 9 March that "shook him up" and revealed the seriousness of the crisis. Now further protocols show that the experts did not want a lockdown, did not close shops, schools and universities and did not want to push the economy and the education system against the wall. "Warnings from health experts about bottlenecks in protective equipment and tests ... were taken up much too late". The strategy of the national crisis team - which relied on controls, isolation and segregation of sick people in "central accommodations" such as barracks - was not taken into account or only little. South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan and the Chinese province of Guangdong have successfully demonstrated this strategy. “Friday, February 28, 2 pm: In the Ministry of the Interior, the“ planning cell ”of the“ SKKM coordination staff ”presents its considerations. Just like the experts in Anschober's expert advisory board, the security strategists also rely on "isolate and protect". "The mass of suspected cases" should be "decentrally isolated by means of traffic restrictions", the "surveillance (streaking)" should be carried out by the executive, ... "The head of human medicine at Ages, the agency for health and food security, Franz Allerberger, held the measures such as closing schools and kindergartens for "problematic". It would be important to "keep the children away from the grandparents as much as possible". Ivo Steinmetz, Director of the Institute for Hygiene, Microbiology and environmental medicine from the Medical University of Graz agrees: “Older people should limit personal social contacts as much as possible. Canceling events with young people is not as important as protecting older people. ”None of this has been implemented. On Thursday March 12th the measures announced on March 13th and effective from March 16th were then decided. The Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor joined the experts for the first time. The short motto explains: "People should be afraid of infection, fear that their parents and grandparents will die", is recorded in the minutes. "Soon we will all know someone who has died of this problem", "100,000 dead", "life threatening" and "lifesaver", these are the words that, above all, Kurz and Interior Minister Karl Nehammer (ÖVP), but then also use Kogler. Not all of the experts wanted to participate. Public health expert Martin Sprenger leaves the advisory staff to devote himself to scientific work and to be able to freely express his opinion again. Another interesting e-mail is: "We should try to change the current language regulation soon and as soon as possible from the message that shocked us all," warned Ages expert Allerberger on March 14, his advisory board. “The problem is so widespread that anything else will result in disrupting anything that causes collateral damage that goes far beyond that. Any message that can be misinterpreted as 'very dangerous' is counterproductive. It's not dangerous for over 80 percent of the population. "What is striking is how late the Austrian government had taken care of the matter. In particular, the procurement of protective equipment, tests and other medical materials should have already been started, after the WHO issued a warning to all governments at the end of January. Chemistry Nobel laureate Michael Levitt, professor of structural biology at Stanford University, judged Austria skeptically: “And the biggest losers are Austria, Australia and Israel, which had strict locks without many cases. They have harmed their economy and society, their children's education, but they have not had herd immunity. ”Hopefully he is wrong. after the WHO issued a warning to all governments at the end of January. Chemistry Nobel laureate Michael Levitt, professor of structural biology at Stanford University, judged Austria skeptically: “And the biggest losers are Austria, Australia and Israel, which had strict barriers without many cases. They have harmed their economy and society, their children's education, but they have not had herd immunity. ”Hopefully he is wrong. after the WHO issued a warning to all governments at the end of January. Chemistry Nobel laureate Michael Levitt, professor of structural biology at Stanford University, judged Austria skeptically: “And the biggest losers are Austria, Australia and Israel, which had strict barriers without many cases. They have harmed their economy and society, their children's education, but they have not had herd immunity. ”Hopefully he is wrong.

In a republic, the men in office are indistinguishable from the crowd. Very few of them have the slightest personal dignity with which to endow their political role; even if you've ever thought of something like that. And they have no class distinction to give them glamor. In a republic, the government grumbles because it has no astonishment or holiness to gild it. If you are a good, old-fashioned Democrat, enjoy this fact. They boast the clarity of a system in which every citizen has become king. If you are more demanding, complain about the transition of dignity and honor from state affairs. In practice, however, the Democrat doesn’t treat his elected citizen in the least with the respect of a king

Here is a brief introduction to democracy, which in short means nothing at all.

Democracy enables freedom of speech, expression and assembly, but does not free people from social structures that largely prevent them from having something to say to each other because they also have nothing to say. Democracy abstracts from the subaltern state of immediate work, which tends to narrow, dull and weary those who work in it, that usually there is little point and time left for everything that exceeds the immediate 'coping with life'. The muscles of grappling with the world wither. It turns into a rarely practiced part-time job (primarily in voting for elections).

Democracy emerged in ancient Greek Polis as a power tool with which a minority could control the majority. This is of fundamental importance because it is a fundamental systematic feature of true democracy. Citizens had power over others who had no access to these instruments (non-citizens, slaves, women) through democratic instruments. The citizens came to power with democratic instruments. With power (or its participation in power), the citizen was at the same time obliged to take his place in the column and, if necessary, to die for the state. In a true democracy, the right to power was paid for with blood and life and not with money, as was later the case. Ancient Roman democracy was also a minority's power over the majority. The right of the citizen to participate in this power was accompanied by the obligation to take a place in a Roman legion and, if necessary, to die in battle. The minority of Roman citizens, organized in one state through democratic instruments and Roman law, had power over vast territories and masses that were not in democracy and therefore not in power. The decline of ancient democracy occurred through the expansion and simplified preservation of citizenship when new citizens joined democracy and the right to power was no longer balanced by the obligation to die for home. A smaller group of rulers actually had to provide for the masses who formally had the same rights to power. This created a special kind of social dependency - the clientele as an instrument of power for smaller groups under the guise of mass democracy. Democracy changed from a form of government to a form of society that subordinated the state. The Roman world, based on the state, began to crumble. The solution was to rebuild state power. The powerful empire came into being, which for several centuries made democracy disappear not only in society but also in the state. This gave Rome and Byzantium another 500 or almost 1,500 years of history. who formally had the same rights to power. This created a special kind of social dependency - the clientele as an instrument of power for smaller groups under the guise of mass democracy. Democracy changed from a form of government to a form of society that subordinated the state. The Roman world, based on the state, began to crumble. The solution was to rebuild state power. The powerful empire came into being, which for several centuries made democracy disappear not only in society but also in the state. This gave Rome and Byzantium another 500 or almost 1,500 years of history. who formally had the same rights to power. This created a special kind of social dependency - the clientele as an instrument of power for smaller groups under the guise of mass democracy. Democracy changed from a form of government to a form of society that subordinated the state. The Roman world, based on the state, began to crumble. The solution was to rebuild state power. The powerful empire came into being, which for several centuries made democracy disappear not only in society but also in the state. This gave Rome and Byzantium another 500 or almost 1,500 years of history. Democracy changed from a form of government to a form of society that subordinated the state. The Roman world, based on the state, began to crumble. The solution was to rebuild state power. The powerful empire came into being, which for several centuries made democracy disappear not only in society but also in the state. This gave Rome and Byzantium another 500 or almost 1,500 years of history. Democracy changed from a form of government to a form of society that subordinated the state. The Roman world, based on the state, began to crumble. The solution was to rebuild state power. The powerful empire came into being, which for several centuries made democracy disappear not only in society but also in the state. This gave Rome and Byzantium another 500 or almost 1,500 years of history.

This is how the (true) democracy and its historical fate look in short.

Democracy is not, as you might think, a clearly defined form of government that functions in a very specific way "that way and not otherwise". On the contrary: Both in theory (that is, in the ideas that have made up their minds about how something like this could work) and in practice (how it really works) there are as many different forms of democracy as states that can be described as democratically governed states. Nevertheless, of course there are certain similarities between all democracies, just as one can distinguish groups of democratic systems that are more similar to each other than others.

Although the philosophers of the Enlightenment developed very different ideas in their state theories, which are the basis of modern democracy, in the concrete political everyday life in all democratic states, the essential ideas were then adopted by all thought leaders and combined with each other - however, from country to country with different weights. This is how all modern democracies know:

The big similarities

the separation of powers:

legislative branch [Legislative Power]: Parliament

usually two chambers. In states, state representation by population and representation of the states. Also approves government spending.

executive [executive power]: government and administration

Judiciary [judicial power]: Courts

a constitution [basic law]:

regulates the basic rights of the residents and the organization of the state organs, their tasks and powers (the most important thing in a small booklet)

(Normal) laws regulate the details (in several books):

a civil code: mutual rights and obligations of people

a penal code: prohibitions and punishments

Laws regulating state activities e.g. tax law, code of criminal procedure (how do the courts work) etc.

Laws on individual subject areas e.g. environmental protection, agriculture, energy supply, railways, road traffic etc.

Regulations:

Government instructions on how to apply the law

elections

Parties:

Groups of people who work together to find solutions to political questions and present different programs to the people during elections

Referendums or referendums

In direct democracy, referenda are common and binding; in parliamentary and presidential democracies, referendums are rare to very rare and not always binding. Opinion polls also represent a not unimportant form of referendums, although they are not formally provided for in the constitutions and are therefore not binding.

Parliament's task

One of the most important tasks of parliaments is to enact new laws. That makes sense, because a democracy that wants to endure has to be flexible. Our society is constantly changing. Laws should organize and hold a society together, so old laws have to be constantly checked, corrected if necessary or just created.

If a majority wins a vote, Parliament is required to implement it so that everyone can live with it. If a party gains seats in parliament, it is not to impose its policies on others, but to work out political solutions with the other parties, with which everyone can live.

So, an election victory does not mean that the successful party is now the bully on the break. That would be the case in a two-party system like the one in the USA. We strive for consensus solutions. And the best of all consensus solutions is achieved when everyone is dissatisfied.

Yes, that's frustrating. Especially when politicians promise their voters that they will quickly put everything in order as the voter is dreaming of. This is fraud on voters. And this is where a large part of the disenchantment with politics comes from: voters feel that they can never get what they promised and could give up on it. Of course, after the elections, compromises can only be found with the other parties.

I am not casting my vote to rule this country the way I imagine it to be. I cast my vote so that it will be considered, like all other votes. I do not want to "win", I do not want to dictate with my ideas, but to participate in a protracted democratic process.

And that is exactly what is not possible in our country. No party, no politician takes the time to work on democracy, to develop it further. On the contrary, we choose, we win, the winner is chosen, what are we left with? We have once again chosen a leader who will guide us for the next few years. The elected politician sees himself as chosen, just as a leader who determines the direction, who can do everything he wants - and they do that, color doesn't matter.

What was once democracy has long ceased to exist. We just have to look at the elections. How was it before Previously a program was chosen, a party submitted a program for election, the representative of that party was rather a minor matter; later we chose a party, the program was no longer so important; Today we choose a head, whoever it is, without a program, maybe with keywords, not even a party anymore, it is no longer so important. The look of the election candidate counts a lot more!

Democracy should actually mean participation, but who of us has ever been able to have a say? An election is not a codetermination, it is a determination of who will be in charge in the next few years, who will become a millionaire. The losers are certain, it is the voters who run and bleat like lambs.

Democracy emerged in the ancient Greek city of Polis as an instrument of power with which a minority could control the majority. Which is no longer the case today. That is a fundamental systematic feature of true democracy. The. Citizens had power over others who had no access to these instruments (non-citizens, slaves, women) through democratic instruments. The citizens came to power with democratic instruments. With power (or its participation in power), the citizen was at the same time obliged to take his place in the column and, if necessary, to die for the state. In a true democracy, the right to power was paid for with blood and life and not with money, as was later the case. Ancient Roman democracy was also a minority's power over the majority. The right of the citizen to participate in this power was accompanied by the obligation to take a place in a Roman legion and, if necessary, to die in battle. The minority of Roman citizens, organized in a state through democratic instruments and Roman law, had power over vast territories and masses, not in democracy and therefore not in power. The decline of ancient democracy occurred through the expansion and simplified preservation of citizenship when new citizens joined democracy and the right to power was no longer balanced by the obligation to die for home. A smaller group of rulers actually had to provide for the masses who formally had the same rights to power. This created a special kind of social dependency - the clientele as an instrument of power for smaller groups under the guise of mass democracy. Democracy changed from a form of government to a form of society that subordinated the state. The Roman world, based on the state, began to crumble. The solution was to rebuild state power. The powerful empire came into being, which for several centuries made democracy disappear not only in society but also in the state. This gave Rome and Byzantium another 500 or almost 1,500 years of history. who formally had the same rights to power. This created a special kind of social dependency - the clientele as an instrument of power for smaller groups under the guise of mass democracy. Democracy changed from a form of government to a form of society that subordinated the state. The Roman world, based on the state, began to crumble. The solution was to rebuild state power. The powerful empire came into being, which for several centuries made democracy disappear not only in society but also in the state. This gave Rome and Byzantium another 500 or almost 1,500 years of history. who formally had the same rights to power. This created a special kind of social dependency - the clientele as an instrument of power for smaller groups under the guise of mass democracy. Democracy changed from a form of government to a form of society that subordinated the state. The Roman world, based on the state, began to crumble. The solution was to rebuild state power. The powerful empire came into being, which for several centuries made democracy disappear not only in society but also in the state. This gave Rome and Byzantium another 500 or almost 1,500 years of history. Democracy changed from a form of government to a form of society that subordinated the state. The Roman world, based on the state, began to crumble. The solution was to rebuild state power. The powerful empire came into being, which for several centuries made democracy disappear not only in society but also in the state. This gave Rome and Byzantium another 500 or almost 1,500 years of history. Democracy changed from a form of government to a form of society that subordinated the state. The Roman world, based on the state, began to crumble. The solution was to rebuild state power. The powerful empire came into being, which for several centuries made democracy disappear not only in society but also in the state. This gave Rome and Byzantium another 500 or almost 1,500 years of history.

Democracy rests on a noble indifference to the distances, indifference and contradictions between the actors. The capitalist economy and modern society (cf. their relationship and the associated difficulties in social formation Creydt 2000b) limit cooperation, "empathy, trust, benevolence, sympathy and foresight" (Offe 1996/288). The reasons for this already lie in the "structures of the division of labor on the one hand", the "thematic and social patterns of the institutions of collective action, ie the aggregation and conveying of interests on the other hand" (Offe 1989/760). In particular, the vertical and horizontal division of labor, in which "'someone else is always responsible'", has negative effects on cooperation and association. Vertically, it becomes possible that “everyone can shift responsibility upwards, at higher locations pre-determined premises of their own actions”. And horizontally, the omnipresence of available specialist and expert knowledge leads to the chronic presumption of incompetence against social actors as well as the actors against themselves - even in the simplest everyday practical actions. ('If you see an accident with injuries,' the driving instructor teaches, 'then drive on quickly. If you transport the victim, it messes up your back seat, and afterwards you are also to blame if something goes wrong. nothing can happen to you. ') ... bureaucracy,

Democracy has the distinction between economy and politics. First and foremost, the economy should work according to its own logic. 'Non-material' claims have to be put into perspective. The "constraint of economic conditions" is "silent" and "for the ordinary course of things (workers) can be left to the 'natural laws of production', ie its dependence on capital, which arises from the conditions of production itself, guaranteed and immortalized by them" (Marx: Das Kapital, Vol. I, MEW 23/765). This also relativizes the relevance of legal equality and laws: "No proletarian is forced to tighten the yoke of capital by any law," but by the lack of means of production. “But no law in the world can decree these means for him within the framework of bourgeois society, because he was robbed of them not by law but by economic development. All basic relationships of capitalist class rule cannot be transformed by bourgeois legal reforms because they have not been brought about by bourgeois laws, nor have they taken the form of such laws ”(Luxemburg 1970/55).

The hegemonic ideological constructs of the democratic middle class, freedom and equality, cannot be extended to society with the expectation that society would then free itself from capitalism. “Capitalism enables the further distribution of political goods compared to previous societies due to the distinction between the economic and the political that is characteristic of it. ... Since the appropriation of the surplus product no longer depends directly on legal privilege and political violence, as it did under pre-capitalist conditions, the expansion of political and legal rights does not mean the same danger as it represented for the feudal master ”(Wood 1988 / 13).

Without denying the friction of democratic values ​​with reality, it should not be underestimated how 'freedom' relates to isolation and mutual exclusion (MEW 1, 364-66), the obligation of individuals to “private security and private insurance” (MEW 4, 472 ), the introspection and assumption of an individual being in general to pay attention to the being-in-the-world (MEW 3, p. 6f .; MEW 1, p. 378), the awakening of internal driving forces (GR 25, results 57) , the interpretation of one's own situation from the nature of one's own will (GR 543, 157), i.e. the unity of self-determination, responsibility and accusation.

Without underestimating the progress that 'equality' represents, it also has to do with indifference, interchangeability, comparison with an abstract third party (cf. GR 79, 159, 912) and with the state release of the pursuit of subjective purposes of citizens regardless of the disposal of the material conditions of their realization. It falls outside the scope of the guarantee of the fundamental right to equality, which is less interested in the distribution of wealth than in its form. It depends on the mutual and free change of hands of the property. Where property as such is to be protected and its freedom of movement to be kept separate from obstructive human interests, it is already implied that individuals are dependent on the service of a wealth that is determined by their criteria to ensure their existence. He appears to people as a foreign property, but also behaves abstractly towards his owners. Criticism of capitalism is not a criticism of capitalism.

Wouldn't it be desirable if politicians were properly prepared for their job in office? First of all, you should learn and internalize the Basic Law, on the bottom of which you ultimately work. They should also get the basic values ​​of our state suggested.

"Love is like an empire, ”wrote Milan Kundera. "If the idea on which it was founded crumbles, it will fade." Democracy, if based on stock market speculation including defiant experts, is not only faded, but more like an unsavory spectacle. Or how do you interpret sentences like: "There are increasing signs that one party and the other party will also grow nationally and that their election successes cannot be explained simply by cantonal specifics." Or "Environmental issues are no longer as good today"?

You can't get more speculation. Neither more profit on the stock exchange for the media and experts involved. Profit that you and I have to pay.

One of the largest media conglomerates has now ordered the associated election analysts. The experts now function like the international rating agencies that present AAA ratings for parties and their associated staff that you wouldn't even let a first grader pass through.

Why this harsh but correct deconstruction of a stock market game of democracy that at first glance seems harmless?

Each of us can see how speculative losses, mismanagement and the bonus capitalism of the banks as own debts are immediately converted into debts of people, states and nations. In 2010, for example, 80 percent of Greek debt was owed to private creditors, i.e. banks, foreign companies, etc., five years later it was only 20 percent at the most. The rest of the Greek people are now supposed to die for the next 60, 80, maybe even 100 years (Germany would have had to shell out the reparation debts of the Versailles peace treaty by 1984 if it had not cleverly destroyed all of Europe beforehand).

It's never about numbers, debts, rules or justice in the "game". Rather, since the international collapse of the financial system in 2007, it has been about power and rule: "Sovereign is whoever puts private debts on entire economies and can settle them so easily." Therefore, the Greeks are punished as "lazy" while the prevailing financial & Media elite can continue to use their billions in the fight against the people, democracy and justice.

The only options that modern democracies have against financial capitalism lie in the ballot and ballot paper of citizens, in the exercise of basic democratic rights such as demonstrations, initiatives, referenda, in complaints under constitutional law. These instruments should not be underestimated. In a democracy, it is a matter of complying with the constitutional principles of prosperity for the community, freedom for the individual, good equipment for civil rights, sustainable planning, human rights, etc. That's why you choose programs, parties, people as agents for all these values. Elections are always a danger for the rulers. Therefore, everything is done to predict, control and “stable”, ie without change, within the framework of the conditions,

Regardless of whether you trust the stock exchange more than democracy, and no matter which voting bank you want to pay your vote in, don't forget: Elections can endanger the future!

'Self-actualization 'also has to do with transforming problems in the world into apparently or really manipulable samples that are abstractly tailored in terms of their causes and consequences, which the individual owes to his image as a capable and autonomous subject. The negation of the city by one's own home as a real fiction of a non-collective solution to the housing problem (in addition to car traffic, relationship to body and illness, etc.) is an example of the self-realization that is set out in the bourgeois world as a practical necessity and as a need , cultivated as a dream and satisfied in real terms - within the limits of solvent demand. The intention to play the bourgeois model of civilization and culture against bourgeois society, encounters the “modest selfishness” that “asserts its limitations and allows them to be used against itself” (MEW 1, 389). “The opacity of alienated objectivity throws the subjects back to their limited self and reflects its split-off being-for-itself, the monadological subject and its psychology, as the essential” (Adorno GS 8, 54).

Freedom, equality and self-actualization share the problems of a society in which competition, indifference and antagonisms make protection from others and dominion necessary, legal forms occupy a dominant position in public social relations and cooperation and solidarity take place in the horizon of private and particular calculus. “Wasn't it already a sign of a certain narrowness of the 1968 leftist understanding of history that it had sworn so monomaniacally towards emancipation? Freeing yourself from shackles is only one thing, conditioned; the unconditional other is the free acceptance of new and even more extensive liabilities, an act of (re) socialization ”(H. Fleischer, Objection 19/20, Munich p. 18).

The state is the reality of the moral idea - the moral spirit, as the manifest, self-evident, substantial will that thinks and knows and carries out what it knows and in so far as it knows. He has his immediate existence in the custom, and in the self-consciousness of the individual, the knowledge and activity of the individual, his mediated existence, just as this has his substantial freedom through the attitude within him, as his essence, purpose and products of his activity.

The penates are the inner, lower gods, the folk spirit (Athena) the knowing and wanting divine; piety the sensation and morality that behaves in sensation, political virtue the wanting of the intended purpose in and for itself. (Hegel, §257)

The material life of individuals, which in no way depends on their mere will, their mode of production and the form of transport that are mutually dependent, is the real basis of the state and remains so at all levels at which division of labor and private property are still necessary , regardless of the will of individuals.

These real conditions are by no means created by the state power, rather they are the power that creates them.

The same applies to the ruled classes, on whose will it does not depend whether law and state exist. ...

Man is the world of man, state, law firm. (Marx)

Marx states: Modern industry has transformed the small workshop of the patriarchal master into the large factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of workers, huddled together in the factory, are organized by soldiers. They are placed as common industrial soldiers under the supervision of a full hierarchy of non-commissioned officers and officers. They are not only servants of the bourgeoisie, of the bourgeois state, they are serviced daily and hourly by the machine, by the supervisor and, above all, by the individual manufacturing bourgeois themselves proclaimed as their purpose.

The state, that is the bourgeois state, is to be understood as an instrument of power for the bourgeoisie, which is primarily responsible for ensuring the continuation of the bourgeoisie's business and its rule over the workers. This bourgeois state needs to be 'abolished', but this can also be done through reforms that workers carry out after they take power.

All of the upheavals perfected this machinery instead of breaking it.

According to Marx and Engels, the workers take power via the “struggle for democracy” by the proletariat (the workers).

What is the moral state? The basic principle of Hegelian moral state is the completion of abstract law and morality. Ultimately, “morality” is always about the question of social order, the question of the connection between the individual and the social.

Rudolf Eisler assesses: “Moral will is will in the direction of the ideal unity of people's will. The ideal legislation, as a principle of which our maxim of will must be able to be shown, is one in which the will of our fellow human beings is taken into account, so that not only we, but also the others as free, reasonable, legislative beings, ie Personalities come into their own. ”(Eisler 1930)

The philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), for whom the experience of violence in political disputes was formative, described man as a “wolf for man” when viewed in terms of her state work (Hobbes GF: 63). Since I have never dealt extensively with Hobbes myself, I do not understand his view of man. The famous wolf quote is not alone. It says completely:

"Now both sentences are certain: man is a god for man, and: man is a wolf for man; that when you compare the citizens with each other, this when you compare the states with each other. There one approaches righteousness with God through justice, love and all virtues of peace; even the good have to help with the depravity of the bad because of their protection because of the warlike virtues, the violence and the cunning, ie the predation of the wild animals. ”(Hobbes GF: 63-64)

The bourgeois state is nothing more than a mutual insurance of the bourgeois class against its individual members as against the exploited class, an insurance that has to become more and more expensive and apparently more and more independent towards bourgeois society, because the exploitation of the exploited class is becoming more and more difficult. (K. Marx, Review of Socialism and the Tax, MEW 7, 285288.)

Ultimately, there are many communities of people - the state is distinguished by the fact that, as a whole, it includes all moments of human life (family, economic, political institutions) and that it relates to itself in its development (ibid .: 330, § 536) . The state is the highest way of conveying individuality and sociality, and it justifies, includes and encompasses the family and economic relationships of the people.

The centralized state power, with its omnipresent organs, army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, judges, organs, created according to the plan of a systematic and hierarchical division of labor comes from the times of the absolute monarchy. ... During the subsequent forms of rule, the government was placed under parliamentary control, ie under the direct control of the property classes. On the one hand, it has now developed into a greenhouse for colossal government debt and overwhelming taxes and, thanks to the irresistible attraction of its powers, On the other hand, their income and allocation of positions to the squabbles for the competing factions and adventurers of the ruling classes changed their political character at the same time as the economic changes in society. As the progress of modern industry developed, broadened, deepened, the class opposition between capital and labor, to the same extent the state power became more and more the character of a public power to suppress the working class, a machine of class rule. (K. Marx, Civil War in France, MEW 17, 336.) to the same extent, state power became more and more the character of a public power to suppress the working class, a machine of class rule. (K. Marx, Civil War in France, MEW 17, 336.) to the same extent, state power became more and more the character of a public power to suppress the working class, a machine of class rule. (K. Marx, Civil War in France, MEW 17, 336.)

At Hegel, morality is therefore defined as "a set of duties that we have, which means that a society based on the idea must be promoted and maintained" (Taylor 1998: 492). One can also read this as an expression of conservatism if one relates the promotion and preservation to the social conditions of his time. At Hegel, however, this cannot be meant because all treatises on statehood, in which the forms of realization of this general connection between individuals and society are discussed, find their truth (ie their overarching classification and justification) in world history (see HW 10: 347, § 548), so in "progress in the consciousness of freedom" (HW 12: 32). It is assumed that "there is reason in history at all" (HW 10: 348).

Karl Marx expressly criticizes Hegelian social theory (MEW 1 / KHS, MEW 1 / KHR). The content of the criticism is above all the logical structure of Hegel's reasoning, in which, according to Marx, the concrete object is developed from abstract logic. He sees this as mystification.

"It is not the logic of the matter but the logic that is the philosophical moment. Logic does not serve to prove the state, but the state serves to prove logic. ”(MEW 1 / KHS: 216)

Sahra Wagenknecht shows how this criticism feeds from Feuerbach's thinking (Wagenknecht 1997: 136 ff.) And ultimately often does not work on Hegel's texts themselves, but rather on positions that the Young Hegelians took in a unifying way (ibid .: 179).

"Marx's criticism, if one refers to Hegelian “phenomenology” as such, simply appears to be wrong. However, it becomes immediately understandable and its vehemence comprehensible, if you see it in the context of the Young Hegelian "phenomenology" reception and especially Bauer's "philosophy of self-confidence". (ibid .: 180)

Sahra Wagenknecht also shows that two lines of reasoning run parallel at Hegel: On the one hand, he bases the forms of movement of bourgeois society in a materialistic sense from the division of labor, etc .; on the other hand, the respective structure should also prove to be the realization of the eternal / absolute substantiality. Marx is not targeting the second line because it can be used for conservative and apologetic ideologies and Marx expressly does not want to recognize the functionality of the prevailing order in its (albeit limited) reasonableness, but aims to abolish it.

At that time (1843) Marx was still based on a true idea of ​​the political state (MEW 1 / DFJ: 345), which he saw in democracy (MEW 1 / KHS: 231). At this point Marx is also quite a Hegelian: "Reason has always existed, just not always in a reasonable form" (EW 1 / DFJ: 345) - only because of this can it also "show that the world has long since had a dream of something possesses of which she only has to have consciousness in order to really possess them ”(ibid.). The writing “Zur Judenfrage” (MEW 1 / JF), in which Marx deals extensively with the relationship between individuality and sociality in a general anthropological sense, also belongs to this phase of Marxian thinking.

Here he rejects the individualistic ideas of autonomy and freedom that can be found in the French "constitution" of 1793:

"So freedom is the right to do and do everything that doesn't harm anyone else. … It is about man's freedom as an isolated monad referring back to itself. ”(MEW 1 / JF: 364)

At various points, Marx also formulates the negation of this idea that he represents. While the human right of freedom is based “on the separation of man from man”, it should be “on the connection between man and man” (ibid.). And while bourgeois society allows every human being to find the barrier to his freedom in another human being, every human being should find realization in the other human being (ibid .: 365)

The Constitution

Today, the constitution refers to special and very special laws that form the basis for state action and regulate the establishment and exercise of political rule. For example, a constitution contains the rules for how a state is structured and who can pass laws.

"Exercising political sovereignty ”means that a constitution does not only determine which institutions should exist. It also regulates how decisions (e.g. laws or judgments of courts) are to be made, what the individual institutions of the state are allowed to do, and where limits are set.

The judiciary should therefore be independent. Judges and prosecutors appealed to the government to strengthen the independence of the judiciary. Is that a contradiction? In a joint paper, the representatives of the registrar requested that the right to issue instructions to an independent body, and personnel and budget sovereignty, be transferred to a judicial council. Independence is also very important to the administrative judges. The independence of the judges is guaranteed by constitutional law. It consists in being independent of instructions and in that judges can only be dismissed or transferred on the basis of judicial knowledge. The judge is bound only by the legal system. No body within and outside the judiciary can give a judge instructions on a specific factual decision, not the Minister of Justice or the Federal Ministry of Justice. The Federal President appoints the judges according to a fair and objective selection procedure; The Federal President transferred the right to appoint judges to the district and regional courts to the Federal Minister of Justice. The judges and prosecutors have reaffirmed that the judiciary has the task of helping the right to break through, regardless of the person, regardless of their status, wealth, or power. The judiciary is not in the service of politics: separation of powers means that nobody should order him opportune judgments, choke him off unpleasant trials, be able to choose his judges and prosecutors; the powerful should not be able to "judge" it. Nobody is above the law, no minister, no MP, no judge,

As early as 1788, Alexander Hamilton emphasized on the draft US constitution that no state authority should have a direct or indirect influence on the others in the exercise of their powers; the internal structure of a governmental system should be designed in such a way that "its various parts, through their mutual relationships, themselves become the means to put the other part into its place."

Democracy remains within the limits of politics set by the capitalist economy. If interventions exceed the limits regarded by the associations of capital as critical of the system, massive counter-reactions (flight of capital, production restrictions, 'investment strikes') are likely. In the interest of non-economic goals, the state is dependent on the flourishing of the economy. An asymmetry between the economy and other areas in the societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails relates to the range, duration and intensity with which one area (the economy) other areas the requirements of their own success as an inevitable criterion and the own follow-up problems as non-negligible boundary conditions of one's own functioning.

But the problem does not only include the advocacy and practice of hate crime. It starts much earlier: indifference to poverty, war and exploitation in the world. Well-off German taxpayers are outraged and worried by the prospect of having to finance “poverty migrants”. We still want to fight for the political, economic and social interests of the entire working people in town and country. This is a well-known form of capitalism, the fear of having to give up something, while being afraid of being neglected. A disease that made it possible for capitalism to establish itself so quickly. If you have little, the little is taken away, if you have a lot you get even more. The people are completely self-centered, how much they themselves benefit from economic exploitation and cheap production in their countries and live in prosperity at the expense of such people. But instead of protesting against the growing gap between rich and poor and confronting the economic profiteers of exploitation, they are turning against the weakest in society: homeless and defenseless refugees, people like us, with their noses, eyes, ears and mouth. Sometimes we don't smell, sometimes we don't say anything, sometimes we don't hear anything, sometimes we don't speak, often our eyes, ears, mouth have to be opened before we can act. But then it is often too late. But instead of protesting against the growing gap between rich and poor and confronting the economic profiteers of exploitation, they are turning against the weakest in society: homeless and defenseless refugees, people like us, with their noses, eyes, ears and mouth. Sometimes we don't smell, sometimes we don't say anything, sometimes we don't hear anything, sometimes we don't speak, often our eyes, ears, mouth have to be opened before we can act. But then it is often too late. But instead of protesting against the growing gap between rich and poor and confronting the economic profiteers of exploitation, they are turning against the weakest in society: homeless and defenseless refugees, people like us, with their noses, eyes, ears and mouth. Sometimes we don't smell, sometimes we don't say anything, sometimes we don't hear anything, sometimes we don't speak, often our eyes, ears, mouth have to be opened before we can act. But then it is often too late. sometimes we don't speak, often our eyes, ears, mouth have to be opened before we can act. But then it is often too late. sometimes we don't speak, often our eyes, ears, mouth have to be opened before we can act. But then it is often too late.

It is a shame for us, especially against the background of the historical crimes of National Socialism. As if history hadn't taught anything, people are again excluded and attacked due to certain characteristics. Houses burn down again. Again there is a silent crowd that withdraws into private instead of forming a strong civil society. A democratic civil society is the only effective structure to suppress racism on the ground.

While the capital of the rich is being defended, more and more people who were just a few years ago are becoming impoverished. The blatant cuts in the labor and education sector prevent the economy from recovering.

Not much is left of humanism and democracy. We have to go out on the streets. It is only a matter of time before demonstration bans are enforced in crisis countries - we have to act. Now. No one can rely on the EU - as can also be seen in the case of Hungary.

Non-discrimination and democracy are often in contradiction. But there are no universally valid answers. By Andreas Glaser, constitutional lawyer

It is strictly forbidden to discriminate against people, for example because of their origin, race or political convictions. The Federal Constitution (BV) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) stipulate that nobody should be discriminated against. A distinction based on the characteristics that create suspicion of discrimination is permitted, however, provided there are good reasons for doing so.

Decisions made on the basis of the ban on discrimination are questioned in various ways. Does the banning of veils in the canton of Ticino discriminate against Muslim women because of their religious beliefs? Does the adoption ban enshrined in the Partnership Act discriminate against same-sex couples because of their way of life? Does maternity leave discriminate against fathers because of their gender?

A universally valid answer is not possible in any of these controversies. The constitutional court of the canton of Basel-Stadt and many legal scholars saw the burqa ban as unlawful discrimination. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) came to the opposite conclusion with regard to a corresponding legal regulation in France. He cited the general interest in an acceptable social coexistence as a valid reason for the ban. Following this, the Federal Assembly recently determined the compatibility of the Ticino wrapping ban with the BV.

While the constitutional courts in Germany and Austria consider distinctions between mixed-sex married couples and same-sex life partners to be discriminatory when adopting, the Federal Council only wants to loosen the ban on adoption in the Partnership Act only when adopting stepchildren. The joint adoption, however, should remain reserved for married couples. The Federal Council justifies this preference with the special constitutional protection of the legal institute of marriage. The federal councils are likely to follow suit. Parliament limits paid maternity leave to women fathers by limiting the maternity allowance to women. In the opinion of the Federal Court, this complies with fundamental rights, even if the case law of the ECHR opens up some room for interpretation.

Apart from clear - fortunately rare for us - it depends on the perspective of the last instance whether there is discrimination or not. In some European countries, a constitutional court finally decides whether a democratic decision will discriminate and will therefore be lifted. In Switzerland, the parliament assesses the fundamental rights conformity of cantonal constitutions at the federal level, and it ultimately decides on laws. Only the optional referendum can overturn a law. However, the application law for federal laws does not impose a ban on the Federal Court of Examiners. It may well invite the legislature to amend a law that the court considers unconstitutional. One example is the "marriage penalty" tax discrimination based on lifestyle. The people and the estates make the final decision about the unequal treatment that is created in the BV itself. Examples include military service for men and the ban on minarets.

Representative democracy is a republic.

Contrary to the common misconception, a republic is de facto and de-jure NOT a democracy but a republic. It is important to me to establish this conceptual distinction, since a lack of distinction gives the wrong impression. Please compare the functioning of Attic democracy with that of the Roman Republic to provide evidence! Polybios makes an apt analysis here with his anacyclosis: The Republic is and was a mixed form among the state constitutions.

Whether the Minister of Justice is party-free does not matter to the judge-president. Confidentiality, special rules about impartiality and impartiality, protection of other litigants and other things often tie her hands in the public debate. That is why the judges want to take responsibility for personnel selection and resource allocation themselves in a council of jurisdiction. The judge-president and the prosecutor-chairman demanded that items and funds should be distributed “independently, free of political influence”. The Ministry of Justice's right to issue directives to public prosecutors is primarily about “appearance”. Although there are no politically motivated directives anymore, emphasize the representatives. However, the executive judiciary union leader called that the transfer to an independent body comes into the government program. Because: As long as the leadership is politically occupied, you will not get away the suspicion that intervention will take place. This not only affects trust in the judiciary, but also damages politics - if it appears that a politician does not objectively represent everyone, but "helps" individuals. Independence is also an issue for administrative judges, who begin their work at the regional and federal courts of first instance at the beginning of the year. Its task is to control the administration - it must be avoided that the administration can control the courts, for example, by filling posts. For example, proposals made by the Personnel Senate to the state governments that appoint the judges should be binding,

Wrong decisions and omissions in the judiciary locate the network against right-wing extremism, the Mauthausen Committee, the SPÖ, the Greens and the Israelite cultural community. Right-wing extremism is often treated as a minor offense. The Ministry sees no shortcomings. "We show some concrete examples of where there have been unbelievable wrong decisions and omissions". For example, since the summer of 2010 there have been a whole series of reports against “Object 21” and its activists. These would have resulted in a conditional sentence in only one case - namely in August 2012.

"The public prosecutor's office in Wels left most of the advertisements for two years or longer, which did not lead to any results, ”said the spokesman for the Upper Austria. Network against right-wing extremism. For everyone who was informed, it was evident that significantly more neo-Nazis were active at “Object 21”.

Another case is a criminal organization with 200 participants and a large number of serious crimes. However, only 35 accused are found. Only seven of them were on trial for Nazi re-activation. The judiciary decides, but independence does not mean that no mistakes are made. We know from the past that there are deficits and wrong decisions. The Minister of Justice (Karl Beatrix) was informed shortly after taking office that the situation has not worsened since then.

The Mauthausen Committee Austria (MKÖ) and the Upper Austria. Antifa network denounced "wrong decisions and failures in criminal justice" on Monday. As examples, they cited the “silent and silent” termination of the proceedings against a “known right-wing extremist”, who denied the existence of crematoriums in Auschwitz and the murder of Anne Frank and described survivors as “land plagues”. Even anti-Semitic abuse of a rabbi by soccer fans in Vienna last year would not have had any legal consequences.

For SPÖ state managers it is striking that "the Minister of Justice is always late". That applies to her package of measures in the area of ​​juvenile detention as well as the topic of right-wing extremism. "You always have the latent feeling of partisan influence, of consciously looking away," he criticizes. The minister lacks sensitivity, objectivity and commitment to an independent judiciary. "As a minister, Beatrix Karl is not good for fellow citizens in our country," said the SPÖ state manager.

The constitution states that all organs of the state may only act on the basis of laws. It regulates which state institutions exist, how the government is formed, what responsibility it has and how the administration is to be set up. It stipulates that courts and judges must make independent decisions, and it stipulates how state institutions are controlled.

A constitution claims to regulate the structure of a state. This also means that everything that can happen in this state must follow strict rules and be subject to restrictions.

When one speaks of the constitution of a state, it can also mean a description of how processes actually work in a state: who has influence, who determines topics, who can prevent projects, or how decisions are made.

In Austria it is e.g. B. so that the Federal Constitution provides for a central position for the parliament in many state affairs. In fact, the government and the ruling parties dominate large parts of politics. For example, the media regularly reports that "the government has agreed on a law". Of course, the draft law will then also be submitted to the National Council and the Federal Council for resolution. But even if changes are made there after intensive discussions, the public often has the impression that ultimately it is not the parliament but the government that passes laws.

In addition to the formal constitution, there is the "lived" constitution - the so-called real constitution. The real constitution describes the various informal (as opposed to the formal) processes that are effective in political events. This makes the influence of the federal government, the governors or the political parties clear. But you can never ignore the legal constitution.

With its rules, a constitution expects everyone who has functions and responsibilities in the state. The fulfillment of these expectations cannot be taken for granted - for example, that the Parliament discusses laws in detail or that judges are independent. Therefore, these expectations need special protection. And so everything that is decided by Parliament and what the government does must also be measured against the constitution. It must be checked whether what is happening in politics and in the state corresponds to the rules that the citizens have drawn up for it. The constitution must therefore be accepted by all citizens of a state, but above all by the political parties and their representatives in parliament. It should be the basis of their political actions.

The constitution should ensure stability. It also means that constitutions cannot be changed easily.

In Austria, the constitution can only be changed if at least half of the members of the National Council are present at the vote and two thirds of them support the change. In addition, constitutional laws must be described as such very precisely. Some constitutional laws can only be changed with the approval of the Federal Council. If the basic principles of the Federal Constitution are changed, even the people have to vote on them.

Above all, however, a constitution should also regulate the rights and freedoms of everyone in the state and vis-à-vis the state. It safeguards and guarantees human rights and fundamental rights. These are e.g. For example, the right to life, the ban on torture and inhuman punishment, or the ban on slavery. This includes the fundamental right that all people are "equal before the law" and must therefore be treated equally by the state institutions. Their rights must also be decided objectively, and not simply arbitrarily. The constitution guarantees the right to private life and thus, for example, protection against arbitrary house searches or surveillance.

The right to free opinion and the right to information are also part of fundamental and human rights. The right to assemble and demonstrate in public and the right to found an association or a party are also fundamental rights. There is a fundamental right to starting a family and respect for family life. These and other rights are intended to guarantee that people can live in freedom and without fear, that the measures taken in law are as fair and just as possible, and that everyone whose rights have been violated is protected and enforced can.

The founding of the Republic of Austria

The Republic of Austria was founded in 1918 as a democratic state.

The federal constitutional law came into force two years later.

However, the time of democracy in Austria was interrupted. In 1933 the parliament was dissolved, the federal democratic constitution was overridden and many democratic elements, such as freedom of expression, were gradually eliminated. It got worse after the National Socialists came to power in Austria. During this time, the strict leader principle was in effect, and anyone who disagreed was mercilessly persecuted. Maybe your grandparents told you about World War II?

It was not until 1945 that the Republic of Austria was rebuilt on the basis of democratic principles. In the state elections on November 25, 1945, representatives of the people were again elected to parliament for the first time. Since then, democracy has been taken very seriously in Austria! Incidentally, the period since 1945 is called the Second Republic because there was a First Republic between 1918 and 1933.

There is a people (Greek: Demos) who elect their representatives for a certain period of time. The elected representatives then meet in the parliament (legislative) and pass laws. So the parliament is the people's representation. Through the elections, the people determine the political direction in the state and are involved in the legislation.

In Austria not political parties are elected, but political parties. A party is an association of people who share similar views and goals. Parties work in all political areas and can be elected.

Each party has its own party program in which it defines and writes down its views, goals and solution strategies. A party tries to convince as many people as possible of its party program. The parties discuss their ideas with many people and make election promises. They promise to do something in the interests of the voters when they are elected. If they are chosen in the desired position, they spend, for example, more money on the development of cycle paths or for schools.

The government (executive) is responsible for the administration of the state. For example, it must ensure that enough schools and hospitals are built, that there is an adequate road network and enough public transport, that everyone pays their taxes, that criminals are caught, and much, much more.

After elections to the National Council, the Federal President instructs the head of the strongest party (that is the party with the most votes) to form a government. The government is then formed either by the strongest party or by two or more parties that have a majority in the National Council (coalition). In the end, the government has to be appointed by the Federal President. At the head of the government is the Federal Chancellor, also called the head of government, and then there are the federal ministers and the state secretaries.

The members of the government meet regularly in the Council of Ministers, where they can jointly propose laws that are passed first in the National Council and then in the Federal Council. The government is controlled by parliament. Control is important so that the government cannot legislate against the will of the people. If the population is dissatisfied with the government, the next time they can vote for other parties in parliament.

So there are parties that have found a majority and that form the government, the so-called government parties. Those who are not in the government are in the opposition because they have fewer votes and are not in a coalition with the majority party.

The opposition parties take a particularly close look at the government's work and look closely to see whether the government parties are really doing what they promised. They also say what they would do differently.

Post-war Austria

Until 1948, victims of all political directions were organized in the association, the lines were occupied by representatives of the three parties in post-war Austria (SPÖ, KPÖ, ÖVP). However, political disputes played a role from the start. This was explosive in that the association had the central function of confirming the victim status of a person so that they received appropriate support. Discrimination against persons has been and is being reported time and again, especially among social-democratic and Christian-social leaders who delayed or hindered the requests of actual or supposed KPÖ members. In 1948 tensions within the association escalated and the most important organ for the political victims of fascist tyranny in Austria was dissolved in 1948 when the SPÖ and ÖVP board members withdrew. This step was linked to repeated allegations that the KPÖ was misusing the association for political purposes. Against the background of the beginning of the Cold War, the two major parties were forced to break up a non-partisan organization in which many Communists worked in order to politically isolate the KPÖ. In addition, the work of the Association of Politically Persecuted was a nationally important and internationally eyed, sensitive area. This step was linked to repeated allegations that the KPÖ was misusing the association for political purposes. Against the background of the beginning of the Cold War, the two major parties were forced to break up a non-partisan organization in which many Communists worked in order to politically isolate the KPÖ. In addition, the work of the Association of Politically Persecuted was a nationally important and internationally eyed, sensitive area. This step was linked to repeated allegations that the KPÖ was misusing the association for political purposes. Against the background of the beginning of the Cold War, the two major parties were forced to break up a non-partisan organization in which many Communists worked in order to politically isolate the KPÖ. In addition, the work of the Association of Politically Persecuted was a nationally important and internationally eyed, sensitive area.

Austria's quality of democracy

In the following, the Austrian democratic quality is to be compared and analyzed on the basis of empirical indicators in order to finally be able to present theses on the evaluation and evaluation of Austria's democratic quality. Evaluation, rather evaluation, should be understood less as factual statements and more as suggestions for discussion and ways of improving democracy. Evaluation wants to provoke democracy learning here. The empirical reference framework (“benchmark for comparison”) is all member countries of the OECD, supplemented by all member countries of the EU27. The selected time is the last year with existing data information (from the point of view of January 2012), usually the year 2010.28 Only available indicators were used, and created no new indicators. It is about retrieving existing knowledge. Indicators are used by those institutions (organizations) which on the one hand have a (relatively) "non-partisan" reputation, but on the other hand also reflect a certain consensual "mainstream" view. This makes possible critical findings all the more difficult. This should also underline that at least the OECD countries are already well documented by indicators (which does not preclude the need for new and better indicators). To support a comparative view and analysis of the different indicators, all indicators were rescaled to a range of values ​​from 0-100, where "0" should be interpreted as the worst and "100" as the best (empirically already available) measure of democracy and quality of democracy (in the context of our 40-country comparison). Overall, the comparison is based on eleven indicators. In the following, the Austrian democratic quality is to be compared and analyzed on the basis of empirical indicators, in order to finally be able to present theses on the evaluation and evaluation of Austria's democratic quality. Evaluation, rather evaluation, should be understood less as factual statements and more as suggestions for discussion and ways of improving democracy. Evaluation wants to provoke democracy learning here. The empirical reference framework (“benchmark for comparison”) is all member countries of the OECD, supplemented by all member countries of the EU27. The selected point in time is the last year with existing data information (from the point of view of January 2012), usually the year 2010.28 Only available indicators were used and no new indicators were created. It is about retrieving existing knowledge. Indicators are used by those institutions (organizations) which on the one hand have a (relatively) "non-partisan" reputation, but on the other hand also reflect a certain consensual "mainstream" view. This makes possible critical findings all the more difficult. That should also underline that at least the OECD countries are already well documented by indicators (which does not preclude the need for new and better indicators). In order to support a comparative view and analysis of the various indicators, all indicators were rescaled to a range of values ​​from 0-100, with "0" as the worst and "100" as the best (empirically already available) measure for democracy and The quality of democracy would have to be interpreted (as part of our 40-country comparison) .29 Overall, the comparison is based on eleven indicators, most of which can also (more or less) be clearly assigned to the four (conceptual) dimensions of democracy that we identified. Such a broader range of indicators can be understood as an attempt and contribution to to “determine a multi-layered quality profile of democracies” and could help to develop “qualitative or complex approaches to measuring democracy”, as put up for discussion by Hans-Joachim Lauth (2011: 49). We record the empirical result in the table below. The exact sources of the indicators are to be listed and specified below:

a) The dimension of freedom: For this we use the "political rights", the "civil liberties" and the "freedom of press", as they are created annually by Freedom House (2011c, 2011d). Civil liberties are important because they draw a crucial line of distinction between primarily “electoral democracies” and “liberal democracies” with a higher quality of democracy. In the case of political rights and civil liberties, the more differentiated “Aggregate and Subcategory Scores” were also used. There has been some controversial discussion regarding the credibility of Freedom House's rankings. However, it appears that Freedom House's methodology has improved in recent years and Freedom House is essentially using a peer review process, which basically corresponds to academic standards (Freedom House 2011a). Freedom house data is also less problematic for OECD countries than for non-OECD countries. Freedom House also sees freedom in several countries higher than in the United States itself (see also the discussion in Pickel / Pickel 2006: 221). We also included the “Index of Economic Freedom” (Heritage Foundation 2011). With regard to economic freedom, one could of course argue whether this should be included in an evaluation (of freedom) of democratic quality. Freedom House also sees freedom in several countries higher than in the United States itself (see also the discussion in Pickel / Pickel 2006: 221). We also included the “Index of Economic Freedom” (Heritage Foundation 2011). With regard to economic freedom, one could of course argue whether this should be included in an evaluation (of freedom) of democratic quality. Freedom House also sees freedom in several countries higher than in the United States itself (see also the discussion in Pickel / Pickel 2006: 221). We also included the “Index of Economic Freedom” (Heritage Foundation 2011). With regard to economic freedom, one could of course argue whether this should be included in an evaluation (of freedom) of democratic quality.

b) The dimension of equality: Here two indicators were chosen. In the case of gender equality, we refer to the "Global Gender Gap Index" as published annually by the World Economic Forum (Hausmann et al. 2011). It is a comprehensive measure of gender equality that covers the following areas: “Economic Participation and Opportunity”; "Educational Attainment"; "Health and Survival"; and "political empowerment". In terms of equality of income, we decided to refer to the “Social and Welfare Statistics” of the OECD (2011). For the distribution of income, we opted for the Gini coefficient for the entire population (after deducting taxes and receiving possible transfer payments) .30

c) The dimension of control: Here we chose the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), which is published every year by Transparency International (TI 2011). The CPI uses various surveys to aggregate how a country perceives the extent of corruption. Corruption can be interpreted as an (indirect) measure of whether control works (or not).

d) The dimension of sustainable development: The first choice here relates to the “Human Development Index” (HDI), which the United Nations publishes regularly (UNDP 2011). The HDI is calculated from the following areas: "Long and healthy life"; "Knowledge"; and "A decent standard of living". The HDI thus measures “human development”, one of the two basic principles, which, together with the “human rights”, represents and explains Guillermo O'Donnell's (2004a) theoretical architecture on the quality of democracy. As a second indicator, we use the aggregate "total scores" of the Democracy Ranking (2011). The "Democracy Ranking 2011" calculates average values ​​for the years 2006-2007 and 2009-2010, and aggregates the different dimensions as follows (Campbell 2008: 34): "politics" 50 percent; and 10 percent each for "gender", "economy", "knowledge", "health" and "environment". The Democracy Ranking thus defines and records sustainable development even more comprehensively than the HDI (cf. Campbell 2011: 3).

e) Other indicators: We also decided to include two indicators from the “Migrant Integration Policy Index” (MIPEX) in our comparison of the quality of democracy (Huddleston et al. 2011): on the one hand the “overall score (with education)” and the “access to nationality ”. This index therefore measures the integration of migrants or non-citizens into a society and democracy. At first glance, it is not entirely clear to which or which of the dimensions described above (freedom, equality, control and sustainable development) MIPEX should be assigned. Multiple assignments may also be conceivable.

For the evaluations presented below, we put Austria's democracy in reference to the OECD countries (EU27) with a focus on 2010. In theory, four dimensions were conceptually derived (freedom, equality, control and sustainable development), and assigned to them eleven empirical indicators. The following findings can be formulated in this way:

a) Comparative Austrian democratic quality is good in terms of "political rights" and "civil liberties" (freedom dimension), equality of income (equality dimension) and both indicators for the dimension of sustainable development.

b) Comparative Austrian quality of democracy is no longer quite as good in terms of press freedom and economic freedom (dimension freedom), gender equality (dimension equality) and corruption (dimension control).

c) Comparative comparative Austrian quality of democracy is significantly lower (lower position) for both indicators of the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) - for MIPEX in general, Austria only ranks 26th (out of 33) 31 and in terms of access to citizenship even only 30th place ( von 33) .32 In this context it is interesting to note that Austria's poor performance at MIPEX does not appear to rub off on political rights and civil liberties at Freedom House. One hypothesis would be that foreigner integration (at Freedom House) is not given a high priority.

The comparative strengths and weaknesses of Austria's quality of democracy mix differently across the dimensions of freedom and equality. Regarding sustainable development, the Austrian quality of democracy is positioned robustly and ranked high. If the values ​​of the Democracy Ranking for the years 2009-2010 are taken as a starting point (Democracy Ranking 2011), the countries of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland and Denmark are at the top in the global development. The Nordic countries (and Switzerland) are currently the global empirical benchmark for democracy development (for comprehensive and sustainable democracy development). The Nordic countries impressively demonstrate what level of democratic quality is already empirically possible. 33

In many cases the Austrian quality of democracy ranks high to very high in international comparison with the OECD countries, but not across all dimensions and indicators. In terms of further learning for Austria's quality of democracy (according to the thesis), the identification of potential problem areas appears to be particularly relevant, since, of course, reforms of politics and democracy should and must take effect there in particular. There is a need for innovation for Austria's quality of democracy, above all for freedom of the press, gender equality and a more consistent containment and fight against corruption. The most urgent need for action in Austria's quality of democracy is, above all, improved integration of migrants (non-EU citizens) and improved access to citizenship. Integration policy is also networked with neighboring policy areas such as asylum policy (Rosenberger 2010). Austria's citizenship does not know “jus soli”, but uses a pure “jus sanguinis”: automatic citizenship is still acquired through the citizenship of the parents, birth in Austria and residence during childhood and adolescence are hidden and therefore hidden. In this way, descent (ie a biological principle) decides on political rights and automatic political participation (participation) in Austria's democracy.

Finally, some options for improving the quality of Austrian democracy should be outlined and put up for discussion:

a) Citizenship: The introduction of an equal "jus soli" component, parallel to the "jus sanguinis", is urgently necessary.37 Different positions are conceivable and legitimate for dual and multiple citizenship, but there are good arguments for their admission.

b) Gender equality, freedom of the press, improved integration of migrants and containment of corruption: These are areas and policy areas in which Austria is not as good or even worse in comparison. Reforms of Austria's democracy should therefore focus more intensely on these areas of application of “policy”.

c) Balancing political power: Wolfgang C. Müller and Kaare Strøm (2000: 589) empirically calculated for Western Europe that government parties are at greater risk of losing than winning in elections. This would be an expression of the phenomenon why government / opposition cycles and political oscillations (left-right oscillations) are regularly manifested in democracies. A peculiarity for Austria is that there has been a "right-wing" majority at the level of the national parliament (in the National Council) since the National Council election in 1983. Conversely, it can be put up for discussion that - possibly in reaction to the "conservative / right" coalitions of ÖVP / FPÖ and ÖVP / BZÖ (black-blue and black-orange) at federal level in the period 2000-200739 - a "left" majority for the first time since 2005 for the Austrian state parliaments resulted if the state parliaments were weighted according to population (Campbell 2007: 392-393) .40 The continuation of large coalitions (SPÖ and ÖVP) at the federal level may lead to an erosion of the left state parliament majority. For an improved political balance of power it would be possible: increased limitation of terms ("term limits") - thus also for the Federal Chancellor as well as federal statesmen; general abolition of the proportion at state level; general introduction of direct election of mayors in all federal states; a possible direct election of governors - when re-arranging the power balance at state level (ibid .: 402) .41

d) Referendums: Should referendums with a minimum number of signatures be automatically submitted to a referendum and subjected to it? (Should Parliament be able to appeal against it with a "qualified majority"?) The following fears speak against the increased use of referendums: politics (policy cycles) would become too short-term; Blockade of processes of further EU integration; a populist abuse of individual topics (for example against migrants). On the other hand, there is evidence that the population or voters could put an issue on the political agenda that the ruling parties may ignore. It would therefore be important to decide what should be a good minimum number of signatures? 250,000 signatures would probably be too few, 640,000 signatures (around 10 percent of those entitled to vote) may be sufficient. This benchmark could also be raised even higher - for example 25 percent of all eligible voters (Campbell 2002: 39).

e) Political education: In the Austrian school system (e.g. secondary school), political education should be introduced more clearly and consistently than a separate or independent subject. Political education could be conceived and therefore conceived as a “democratic education” (also explicitly designated as such and renamed accordingly?)

f) “Democratic Audit” from Austria: So far, the political system of Austria, its democracy and quality of democracy, have not yet been subjected to a systematic democratic audit.43 For this, for example, the IDEA procedure could be used and applied (Beetham 1994; see also around IDEA 2008). However, it would also be possible to "pool" or combine different methods.

Since the emergence of the modern constitution in the United States and in Europe since the end of the 18th century, we have called the constitution the highest-ranking legal regulations that regulate the order of the state in terms of its basic organizational form and structure, as well as its basic relationship with the citizens. The constitution is thus the central system of rule and values ​​in the state. The GG follows the example of the liberal-democratic constitution as created in the New England states of the USA and in France. It is important for Germany that constitutions were first created in the individual states of the German Confederation from 1813. They were based on the American-Western European constitution. An imperial or federal constitution was added considerably later,

In addition to the content, what is decisive for a constitution is its increased formal legal force. It is the highest-ranking norm in the state, subject to the classification into the supranational EC that has become important today, the law of which basically has priority in the limits of Art. 23 and 24 GG. The national priority of constitutional law is demonstrated above all in the fact that no act of state (including laws and international treaties) may conflict with the constitution. Ultimately, the constitutional jurisdiction decides on the validity or invalidity (Art. 92 GG, Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG and Art. 1 Abs. 3 GG). This priority ensures the constitution in a state of particular importance and dignity. The priority of the constitution is also expressed in

We do not want to delve further here. The constitution is based on a human right that must be guaranteed. Furthermore, it regulates the state, its function and tasks. The highest organs of state are the German Bundestag, the Bundesrat, the Federal President and the Federal Government (Art. 38 ff. GG). These are responsible for legislation, government and administration, and for the Federal President the state representation. Federal laws are either bound to the consent of the Federal Council, or the Federal Council can object to them, but these can then be overcome by the BT (Art. 77, 78 GG). The Federal President is not a ruling head of state like in the United States or France. Neither does he have the powers in a state of emergency like the President of the Weimar Constitution, nor is he the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He cannot make his own policy, but he has to watch that damage to the German people is averted. His term of office is five years with one-time re-election. It is elected by the Federal Assembly, which consists of the members of the German Bundestag and an equal number of members, who are elected by the people's representatives of the federal states according to the principles of proportional representation.

Documents used

"Athens Parliament approves first reform requirements, “Die Presse

Faymann: German role in the Greek crisis was not positive, the standard

Faymann criticism of the SchäublesGrienland course, Kronen Zeitung

What we can learn from the Greeks, Die Presse, Gerhard Hofer

Abdullah Öcalan: Beyond Power, State and Violence, 1st edition, September 2010, Cologne,

Edition of March 9, 2015, page 7 / Foreign Democracy for Fascists

Ruins of democracy? Nadine Diehl I Photo: Laura Jugel I April 2015

The corporate coup against the state, Cicero, magazine for political culture, April 6, 2015

Democratic autonomy or socialism? IN ARABIC WORLD & MIDDLE EAST, MARXISM GENERAL SOCIALISM & COMMUNISM APRIL 6, 2015

aktionsplan-mittelachsen.de, published on April 7th, 2015 (by Heike Hubricht), © Copyright Chemnitzer Verlag und Druck GmbH & Co. KG

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassungskreislauf#Kreislauf_der_Verfassungen_bei_Polybios

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repr%C3%A4sentative_Demokratie#Nachteile_der_repr.C3.A4sentativen_Demokratie

http://www.staatsverschuldung.de/schuldenuhr.htm

HNA, February 16, 2015, action on Rosenmontag: Pensioners from Baunatal fight for democracy

Source: Julius-Hensel

The Hunffington Post, June 24, 2013, Töglitz is everywhere - racism undermines democracy, Monika Lazar.

Hegel.Groundlines.of.philosophy.of.right

Wei_Chu-Yang, Hegel's theory of the moral state

Information on Political Education No. 28 [online version

Plain text with Ulf Poschardt, "Swiss voters are responsible", December 1, 2014

Claus Ludwig is a member of the SAV federal board and is active in the LINKEN Köln-Kalk. He is co-author of the book "Iran, Freedom through Socialism"

Working out democracy every day, Augsburger Allgemeine

The price of democracy, Stefan Salger

It is not so easy to be a Member of Parliament. So how about an apprenticeship as ..., Huffington Post Germany

Queen Elizabeth and the Grace of Early Birth, The World

Hong Kong: vote against sham democracy, socialism info

Experts advocate more direct democracy, proposals from political scientists and lawyers go beyond draft law, Tino Moritz, published on June 24th, 2015

"The agreements are an encroachment on democracy", Luise Bär, Oberholzer Kreisblatt, 30.03.2015

Environmental Institute for More Democracy in Free Trade Agreements, news02 eleven, Abendblatt, Umweltinstitut München eV

Why entrepreneurs don't go into politics, Die Welt, 29.3.2015

Democracy.History Switzerland

Forget "Austrofascism", KURT BAUER (The Press)

Campbell, David FJ (2012). The Austrian Quality of Democracy in Perspective, 293-315, in: Ludger Helms / David M. Wineroither (ed.): A Comparison of Austrian Democracy. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

For an independent judiciary !, The Standard, January 18, 2001

Justice wants to be more independent of politics, Der Standard, December 1, 2013

Criticism of how the judiciary deals with right-wing extremism, ORF, July 15, 2013

Terror Laws: US President Can Attack Any State In The World, Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten, 4.4. 2015

"From the start, Wolfgang Schäuble had the intention of letting Syriza go to the wall," Berliner Zeitung, June 28, 2015

Democracy is Ramsch, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, June 28, 2015

Gerd Valchars: De fi icitarian democracy. Citizenship and Voting Rights in the Immigration Country Austria Braumüller: Vienna 2006

About the relationship between freedom and capitalism, deconstructreality.blogsport.eu reality

Save democracy, news.ch

Elections can endanger your future, news.ch

When direct democracy becomes an affront: The EU's ideological struggle against Greece, RT Germany

Referendum in Greece - late, but correct, more democracy, June 29, 2015

Civil rights decision becomes a fundamental debate on direct democracy, az Aargauer Zeitung, June 29, 2015

Democracy: rule of the manipulated majority, citizens vote, time for change

Deputy Press officer Neelke Wagner, Mehr Demokratie eV

Lisa Mittendrein is a board member of Attac Austria. She works on left-wing economic policy, currently primarily on the euro crisis and Greece.

Martin Konecny ​​is a political scientist and works scientifically and politically mainly on the euro crisis and its authoritarian work. He is currently primarily concerned with the prospects of the Greek left.

Andreas Glaser is Professor of State, Administrative and European Law at the University of Zurich / Center for Democracy Aarau. The contribution is an abbreviated version of his lecture at the 7th Aarau Democracy Days on 26/27. March 2015.

I know how I would vote. (Joseph E. Stiglitz, June 30, 2015)

Joseph E. Stiglitz, Nobel Laureate in Economics, is a professor at Columbia University in New York. His latest book, written with Bruce Greenwald, is called "Creating a Learning Society".

TTIP - Lobbying vs. Democracy, A blog post by Friday community member Frank Happel

How democracy saves itself, Europe An open letter from Barbara Spinelli and Étienne Balibar, Friday community member Marian screw

When direct democracy becomes an affront: The EU's ideological struggle against Greece, RT German, June 29, 2015

Cheers to Germany's democracy, RP Online, July 3, 2015

Democracy ends at TTIP, 2.7. 2015

For dignity and democracy, young world, 4.7.2015

"Very unfortunate for the future of Greece", Zeit Online, July 6, 2015

Greece referendum: "No" camp is clearly ahead, news.at, July 6, 2015

The press, July 6, 2015

Yanis Varoufakis web blog

n-tv.de, July 6, 2015

Dare less democracy, Welzheimer newspaper, FAZ June 6, 2015

Guest comment: Dissatisfaction poses a threat to democracy. Those in charge - especially from the business community - should counter this risk. BY WALTER DÖRING

ÖDP: Muzzle for municipalities in free trade agreements is a slap in the face for democracy

Study on Democracy Acceptance Democrats Out of Habit, 03/06/2015 By Martin Niewendick

Political system of Turkey - Wikipedia

"Recep Tayyip Erdoğan: The Almighty" - | TIME ONLINE

"Election outcome in Turkey: democracy is a waste of time" - FAZ.net

Turkey: Parliament concerned about democracy and fundamental rights

"Democracy as the winner", Wiener Zeitung

Information platform humanrights.ch, human rights in Turkey

"Turkey will never become a western democracy" - The world

"We're always trying to educate others about democracy," Clint Eastwood, stern

"How much hypocrisy can a democracy take?" Friday

"The fairy tale of more democracy", column "Europe at a glance"

"A black day for democracy", Tagblatt.lu, July 8, 2015

"NGOs disappointed by" Grand Coalition for TTIP "in the European Parliament", more democracy, July 8, 2015

Deutsche Welle, Andreas Gorzewski

Direct democracy: 3rd class funerals in Parliament again, Die Presse, Anneliese Rohrer

Hungary and democracy, "Another farewell to Europe?", Deutschlandfunk

"We want democracy without fascism", Schall und Rauch, Freeman

"Fascism, and its democratic coping", Konrad Hecker, Subject Point Publishing House, Munich 1996

"Against Democratic Fascism!", Basic Group Political Science, Critical Circle, Student Council Computer Science, BANG! Alliance of anti-national groups, Die Zecken, Rosa Antifa Vienna

"Fascism and Democracy", Stephan Grigat

"Civil Democracy and the Fight Against Fascism," Leon Trotsky

"All wrong!", Lokalpass.de

“Collateral damage to the Greek crisis: transfiguration of democracy”, Cicero Online

"Best Ideas Future", the Friday

Duma chief: "forget the amoral behavior of the top EU democracy in Europe", Sputnik

"Welcome to no-na-democracy", Salzburger Nachrichten

"The end of democracy", Friday

"This is state incapacitation, not European democracy," Sven Giegold

"Does Athens bow in the name of democracy?" Joachim Petrick, the Friday

"Gun on the head", Lutz Herden, the Friday

"An offer with barbs", René Höltschi, Brussels, NZZ

"Disaster Tourism in the Dictatorship", Yacine Ghoggal, the Friday

"Greece: End and start of a fraud trip", ROLAND TICHY, Tichy's insight

"Power politics and quality press - what kind of Europe should that be?", Stefan Heidenreich, CARTA

Democracy in Europe is becoming a farce, German economic news

Why did many Nazi perpetrators go unpunished? , ARD, Frank groom

Nazi trial: Four years imprisonment for Oskar Gröning, district newspaper Wochenblatt

Comment: For Islam and Democracy, DW

How democracy can develop, Lausitzer Rundschau

More than 60 percent doubt democracy in Germany, Zeit Online

Democracy in the headwind, NZZ

Fascist attacks on refugee homes are increasing - REBELL youth association fights for "House of Solidarity", Rote Fahne News

Erdogan ends peace process with Kurds, Cologne city Anzeiger

Princeton study: US politics does not serve the citizens, but the economic elites, German economic news

A European government is Europe's only chance, by Harald Schuman, Der Tagesspiegel

Dirty deal: West tolerates abolition of democracy in Turkey, economic German economic news

A damage to democracy in Turkey, Cologne City Gazette

Attorney General threatens journalists from netzpolitik.org with imprisonment, IT ZOOM

An abyss of betrayal of democracy, RP ONLINE

Treason? No, "netzpolitik.org" protects democracy, Zeit Online

JOURNALISTS AS TRAITORS, Something is wrong in democracy, Cicero

Obama calls for real democracy, Weser Kurier

Obama calls for more democracy in front of the African Union, The Standard

How western "democracy" supports attacks on Kurds, the spark

Fear for democracy, Tagesanzeiger.ch

EU warns of the threat to democratic dialogue in Turkey, 1815.ch

How the western "democracy" supports attacks on Kurds, derFunke