This goes on until we parents ask, confused or amazed, whether this is really true. Then they shout “traffic world” and are as happy as, well, little children that we parents have fallen for it. After all, they were talking about the “traffic world”, an imaginary world in which everything is upside down. Very funny. <\/p>\n
Transport world<\/h3>\n
I wished someone from the German government would shout “Verkehrtwelt” last week when it was announced that Hans-Georg Maa\u00dfen had been promoted to State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of the Interior after confusing statements and an ultimately abysmal performance by his federal office. I was just in Frankfurt airport and in the lounge there are these televisions on which news is continuously shown. The news hit like a bomb and you could hear people talking about it everywhere. Later I got into a conversation with two older gentlemen. The tenor: “We have voted CDU for 3 decades. Now it’s time for the AfD. They can’t do anything either. But the CDU deserves this”. <\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.alainveuve.ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/Fotolia_196193033_S.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
You get the impression that politics has become downright crazy over the last few years. The pattern always seems to be the same: countries are doing relatively well, people are marginally involved in politics, are increasingly frustrated with the political establishment and then vote for the problem children in protest. This has already happened in America, in Italy too, in Hungary anyway and it will probably happen in Germany too. <\/p>\n
Only stupid people, when they are dissatisfied with mediocre drivers, put the worst drivers at the wheel of the bus. The result is inevitably that the journey becomes even more disastrous. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The problem is not society, but politics<\/h3>\n
For a long time, I thought that society was suffering from the challenges of rapid change, that this was making it difficult to live together, especially when dealing with many different sources of information, which basically unsettles people who are concerned with simplicity. And that’s why you can cling to those who take on this complexity, usually against all the facts. <\/p>\n
In the meantime, however, I have a bad suspicion that it is the other way around. That the problems of societies are mainly caused by the respective political enterprises. <\/p>\n
We against the<\/h3>\n
In my opinion, the reason for this has to do with the fact that politicians almost always focus on making the other party the loser. The vast majority of energy in politics is spent on positional warfare and trench warfare. If you observe the work of many politicians, it is primarily about career and party. Of course, there are other, laudable exceptions, but they usually carry relatively little weight. <\/p>\n
This combination of dividing the camps and wasting resources by concentrating on these same camps has devastating effects on society. By making people believe that “the others” are always to blame for grievances, the rifts in society deepen. The more populist topics are treated, the faster and better this works. And those who are not swayed by this are simply frustrated by a political apparatus that is preoccupied with itself. I think this is now the vast majority in every Western society. <\/p>\n
Everything is transforming – except politics<\/h3>\n
In my opinion, the reason why this can happen is because the political system is not adapting to a world that is changing much faster than it did 100 years ago.<\/p>\n
We talk everywhere, and I mean everywhere, about digital transformation, agility, optimization and new concepts. Only in politics do we not do this. <\/p>\n
Admittedly, yes, there are a few efforts, e.g. with regard to e-voting (which I don’t consider secure enough in its current form). But it’s just an alibi exercise. There is the saying “If you digitize a bad process, then you have a bad digital process”. It’s no different here. <\/p>\n
In my opinion, reforms are needed to get out of the political dilemma. This could include the following approaches: <\/p>\n
Number of laws<\/u><\/p>\n
One major problem is the flood of laws that we are imposing on society. If we carry on like this, it will no longer be possible to do anything without generating extreme expense. We have become accustomed to it. But this development is not healthy. One simple option would be to limit the maximum number of laws so that whenever a new law is to be implemented, another one has to make way for it. <\/p>\n
Complicated laws<\/u><\/p>\n
Laws and regulations should be easy to understand and hardly open to interpretation. I’m a big fan of the three-beer rule: making things so that the average citizen can still understand them after drinking three beers. (Incidentally, this is also how you should develop applications…). Today’s laws are usually a challenge without beer. <\/p>\n
Term limit<\/u><\/p>\n
No one should be able to hold political office for longer than 7 years. You can only really burn for one thing for a limited time. No matter what they do, after 7 years it’s usually over. <\/p>\n
No professional politicians<\/u><\/p>\n
Professional politicians should no longer be possible. There is too great a risk that they will distance themselves from life in society. Every politician should be directly responsible for their income. <\/p>\n
Age restriction<\/u><\/p>\n
Only people between 25 and 65 should be able to hold political office. People under the age of 25 usually risk too much and have often not yet had fundamental, decisive experiences in life. But I think it is precisely this kind of experience that is needed in order to be able to assess, shape and decide things of great importance. You have to be able to put things into perspective. People over 65, on the other hand, usually take too few risks and preserve the status quo too much. This in turn leads to situations like the one we have today. <\/p>\n
Priority list<\/u><\/p>\n
Politicians could keep a democratically determined priority list of 20 points, which would be voted on every 12 months. Issues that are not on the list are not dealt with. <\/p>\n
Replacement of the parties<\/u><\/p>\n
Parties in the current sense can be replaced by loose, changing, transparent interest groups. That sounds crass at first. I know. But parties are a bit like the fax machine 25 years ago. It’s hard to imagine life without them at the moment, but the more alternatives that emerge, the more obvious the disadvantages become. <\/p>\n
Abolition of lobbying<\/u><\/p>\n
Lobbying should be abolished. Lobbying is legally organized corruption. Even in Switzerland. <\/p>\n
Political advertising <\/u><\/p>\n
Political advertising in the media should be banned. Every effort must be made to prevent money from being used to form opinions. <\/p>\n
Introduction of compulsory voting and election<\/u><\/p>\n
Citizens could be obliged to vote and be elected. Voting and electing could be the highest and only civic duty. The actual process should be made as easy as possible for citizens. <\/p>\n
The B team<\/h3>\n
What worries me more and more is that people who are interested in politics, capable and knowledgeable in their field categorically refuse to get involved in politics. A colleague recently blatantly expressed his displeasure to me over dinner: “If you don’t get anywhere in academia and business, you still have a very good chance in politics”. That is of course a nasty and populist statement. But I only half-heartedly wanted to counter it. Too often I have come across people at all political levels who, after just a few words, made it clear that they were not suitable for thinking and debating. <\/p>\n
While in the first half of the last century in Switzerland, for example, the best people from the world of business were regularly drawn into politics, today’s “thought leaders” usually have no interest in participating in politics. The opportunities for shaping policy are too small, the political culture too confused. This leaves room for the “hacks” and the poorly qualified. <\/p>\n
Despite all the criticism, it should not go unmentioned that over the years I have also met politicians from all camps who do honest, sincere and hard work for the good of Switzerland.<\/p>\n
A sense of the common good<\/h3>\n
In general, the political establishment has lost its sense of community. You develop a community, and a country is nothing else, not by overruling or ignoring people with different convictions. You don’t fight and fight against each other in a community. If you can no longer live with what happens in a community, you leave. <\/p>\n
The means to lead communities to success is compromise. It is the price that the ego has to pay in order to participate in the benefits that arise from the community. We seem to have forgotten all this today. And we have a political system that perfectly supports this “against each other”. <\/p>\n
Compromises, especially very difficult ones, only become possible when people treat each other with respect. That doesn’t mean you have to be best friends. But it does mean treating everyone with decency and dignity. When I hear Martin Schulz insulting the AfD, I don’t feel very sorry for him, but I don’t think it’s okay. <\/p>\n
Respect for others<\/h3>\n
On the one hand, because you simply don’t belittle anyone like that on principle and because it’s precisely these kinds of statements that only reinforce the idea that the world is against them. And that is precisely the narrative that this party lives on. So it’s just doubly stupid to do something like that. It would be much better to take these critics and populists radically to task. It is our duty to take them seriously – even if it goes against the grain. <\/p>\n
The recently deceased John McCain impressively demonstrated how to do this during his election campaign against Obama. When asked by a participant in a town hall meeting that one could not vote for Obama because he was not a real American, he replied sharply: Obama was a righteous, honorable American like himself, only his political agenda for America was different. Such statements are not a sign of weakness. On the contrary. They are a sign of an understanding of democracy and community that is broader than one’s own horizons. <\/p>\n
Artikel auf Social Media teilen:<\/p>\n<\/div>