Politics is sorted according to subject areas that ministries and committees give their names: education policy, transport policy, economic policy and so on.
Here and there the questions dealt with in these fields and the decisions made are related, but only rarely closely.
What the Ministry of Development Aid wants usually does not concern the Family Ministry.
Anyone who campaigns for wind turbines does not have to negotiate with the Minister of Justice.
The exception to this loose connection between the political areas is the Ministry of Finance, whose decisions concern all other houses.
In addition to the money, which affects everyone, there is another political link.
It used to be called “ideology”, but this term has long been used as a dirty word.
The problem he denotes has not disappeared.
Titles like “liberal”, “socialist” and “conservative” are reminiscent of the attempt not to break down politics into largely independent individual decisions.
Rather, one should try to decide on the basis of principles.
In many cases capable of forming a coalition
Today the erosion of many classic formulas for a policy that has an impact on all areas of society is obvious. Conservatism has worn itself down in a constant attempt to keep up with the times and their upheavals. In any case, in sixteen years with the Union as the leading ruling party, not much has been preserved. On the other hand, hardly anyone believes that socialism has been implemented poorly in the Eastern Bloc, but basically, if there is no systemic competition, it is a great idea. Liberalism leaves a trust in markets in a community with a state quota of more than fifty percent.
The traditional ideologies have thus become utopias.
They are treated more or less opportunistically, used in ceremonial speeches or for polemics, but usually remain socio-politically dull.
There are therefore far more similarities than differences between the relevant parties, which is why they are often capable of forming coalitions with one another - which we do not want to complain about.
You should just hold onto it.
Praise from the committees
Something else has taken the place of ideologies: symbolic politics, which are advocated or opposed to different degrees. In terms of social policy, questions of fair representation have recently been raised everywhere. So there are calls for quotas, for a parity law and for “diversity mainstreaming” in the entire administration. The SPD's demand that at least one woman should be represented on the boards of large companies seems downright tame.
The gender quotas are recognizable only a first step, but a good example of the desire that as many organizations as possible, but at least the political ones, should reflect the image of society in the composition of their leadership.
If language is required to compensate for social injustice, then the committees will probably be able to do the same.
What that means for their growth has not been thought through to the end.
How big would the Bundestag have to be if it wanted to show proportionally not only the genders, but also the class structure, the educational and age distribution, the religions and the professional groups in the population?
How should the podiums grow if only the most important groups are to be represented on them?
Quite a few rights of objection
Proposals from the election manifesto of the Greens to first reduce the voting age to sixteen years and then - how? - To reduce the success that has been established even further, go in the same direction. This means that the interests of future adults could best be safeguarded in every political field by the MPs of future adults. We are close to the imperative mandate here.
Another phenomenon associated with these notions, which could be described as gentle ideology, is the agent being. It now also pervades all political fields and organizations. Equality, diversity, compliance, sustainability, digitization - wherever a cross-cutting issue arises, positions are required and created for those responsible. The ranks of the Greens even recently suggested setting up a ministry for social cohesion.
Would it, like the Ministry for Climate Protection, which is also called for, be given the right to object to every legislative proposal due to its extreme importance?
The question aims at the problem that was already associated with ideologies.
The stronger they are, the more objectivity they have to sacrifice.
How should factual decision-making be possible if it can be trumped at any time by cloudy valuations and wish lists?