بهدوء 2: الشيوعية والإلحاد

Quote: Civil Society - Not Political Parties - Provide Important Political Stimuli Today In Conversation: Serge Embacher Civil Society - Not Political Parties - Provide Important Political Stimuli Today As a result of the professionalization of politics, there is a widening gap between the parties’ elites and their bases. Opening up political parties to civil society and its practitioners could remedy this situation. But for this to work, parties must no longer see “engaged citizens” as belonging to an enemy camp. On the sidelines of the “Open Base” workshop, we talked with Serge Embacher, a Berlin-based political scientist and author, about how political parties and civil society can move towards, and benefit from, each other. Seeking to counteract the lack of interest in political engagement, the “Open Base” initiative in late January 2013 brought together representatives of all political parties for a discussion on the topic of member recruitment and involvement. BMW Foundation: What is your personal motivation to be politically active? Serge Embacher: I am guided by a strong sense of justice and the observation that the world is organized rather unfairly. This has to do with where I come from. I come from a humble background, what today would be called a “socially disadvantaged background.” But I went to school in the 1970s and 1980s and had the opportunity to make something of my life. Already then I felt strongly that this was due to a certain educational system, certain support mechanisms. In the Social Democratic decade of the 1970s, school students, for example, received BAfandouml;G [a student loan]. The idea was that everybody, no matter from what background, should take control of his or her life or have the opportunity to do so. When I look at people today who come from the same background, they have a much harder time. That, for me, is a very strong motivation. I believe that the world is organized in a highly unfair manner: unfair distribution, unfair opportunities. It is something I think about a lot and am not willing to accept. To what extent does an active civil society come closest to your ideal of a fairer society? I believe that one should not wait for things to happen on their own, but that one should take control of one’s fate and that of others. Here, a lot has happened in Germany in recent years. Civil society is more active now than it was during the former Federal Republic of Germany. For me, civil society today is the sector that provides political ideas and inspiration. All relevant stimuli and initiatives towards more justice, a fairer distribution of wealth, a fairer tax system, better social benefits, and so on come from civil society and no longer – unfortunately, I have to add –, from political parties, including my own. My affiliation is with social democracy, but there is not enough of it. The political parties need the support of, and stimuli from, an active civil society. What then is the role of political parties in civil society? Parties sit in parliaments, in governments, so they dominate our political life public life. That is fine with me. But they also should make sure to represent their base. In order to ensure that parties do not lose touch with their bases and essentially end up governing against the majority of the population, actually the only thing for them to do is to increasingly take their cue from civil society. In reality, however, one often has the impression that an engaged civil society is perceived as an “enemy camp.” For me, this is a rather problematic perception. We used to be beyond that. What is at stake is precisely what Willy Brandt meant in his policy declaration of 1972 when he talked about “daring more democracy.” But many have forgotten that committed, engaged citizens are an enrichment for society, not a nuisance. The political elites and the parties’ base seem to move further and further apart. Why is that and how can we overcome this division? In my view, this has to do with the advanced professionalization of the political sector, combined with a highly problematic media discourse. People in high and top-level positions have the problem that they need to follow a certain internal logic, of politics or of the press coverage about politics. Therefore, they do not openly communicate certain things or they believe, in any case, that they cannot do so, since it might have a negative effect on their party or their own position. Let’s take, for example, the current debate about Rainer Brüderle and the sexism charges against him: He could have come across as highly likeable and at ease if, at yesterday’s reception of the North Rhine-Westphalian FDP, he had said: “Guys, I am sorry, I guess I have to reflect on my role as a man and my ways of dealing with women.” That would have been great! But regardless of what Mr. Brüderle is thinking (and I don’t know what he is thinking), the internal logic of the system makes such a thing impossible, because he knows that the next day’s headlines will be along the lines of “Brüderle caves in” or “Brüderle capitulates to the women’s movement” or some such negative comment. This is the problem, and I don’t have a solution for that. The problem is that there is this media discourse, this profit-oriented idea of “What will tomorrow’s headline yield?” rather than, “What kind of communication would be meaningful and important?” But I think that politics should confront this discourse more openly and with more authentic communication. What will you take away from the discussions in the “Open Base” workshop? I think it’s wonderful that people from across the political spectrum are gathered in this workshop to talk and discuss with each other. Such behavior is utterly untypical in party politics. Normally, parties present themselves as always being in the right and are eager to lay the problem at someone else’s feet. The fact that we are here and that we are saying: “We have to figure out how we relate to society and what our problems are, including to survive as political parties in the long run” is a really good thing. Where do you see opportunities for further developing the “Open Base” idea? The problem is that, after a certain point, especially the closer we get to elections, parties always fall back into fighting mode. So I am skeptical about a lasting cooperation in the future. But maybe we can develop something like politically neutral tools. Each party has member representatives, each party has PR advisers and communications experts who should be responsible for that – and also for integrating the parties into their social environment. If parties let themselves in for that, that might really be something new. This way it might be possible to agree on new rules of fairness, on dealing fairly with each other, and on a communication culture of sorts. How can foundations support an active civil society? “Foundations” is a very broad term, so let’s talk about operating foundations. I think it would definitely be a good idea if they tried to bridge the gap to the political parties. Instead of distancing themselves by saying, “we don’t work with parties, because that’s the responsibility of party-affiliated foundations,” it would be better to say: “We see parties as a part of civil society and as such – only as such (let’s forget about their power machineries for now) – we will try to involve them in debates of general interest: education, opening schools for civil-society engagement, job sponsorship, school-to-education and school-to-work transition all the way to community organizing, in sum: how to prevent the downward slide of whole neighborhoods. I believe that parties might go along with that. But it is a highly ambitious undertaking. Serge Embacher is author of the book "Baustelle Demokratie. Die Bürgergesellschaft revolutioniert unser Land" published by the Kandouml;rber Foundation.