Why germany’s parties are not future-proof
With the bundestag election of september 2009, the last election burger was clear that the change in the party system of the federal republic is inexorably. The classic three (one half) parties system from cdu / csu, spd and fdp resulted in the greats in a four (one night) parties system over. Now it was "the left", to expand this to a fuf (one half) parties system. 5.15 million votes received the left; each ninth wahler voted for this party, which exists in its current form only since the summer of 2007, but not without prehistory. This consists of two strangely linked strangen and is important for any assessment of programs and politics.
In the first free-chosen bundestag of 1949, a left, a communist party was represented, 1.3 million votes and 5.7 percent share of the kpd to move into parliament. But already with the next election 1953 she failed: her defamation of the popular uprising in the gdr as "fascist coup" reduced them to 600.000 votes and 2.2 percent share. With the kpd ban from 1956, any radically left opposition came into the illegalitat.
It was not until 1968 with the dkp again a certified left party, which immediately justified the invasion of czechoslovakia by troops of the warsaw treaty. At the 1972 and 1976 elections, the dkp received almost 120.000 votes, with the two following elections significantly less. Then she disappeared in the insignificance to appear in appearance only from 2005 by the candidacy of dkp members on list straps of the left again. Next to it again 2004/05 from drunk spd members and trade unionists the party "job social justice — the electoral alternative" (wasg).
The other strand sets in 1946 in the soviet occupation zone with the association of spd and kpd to the sed, a compulsory association operated with a varied prere according to specifications of the soviet occupying power. As "state party" dominated her half land almost unrestricted to be deeply depressed in 1989 from the course of history. What was initially involved in 1989/90 as sed pds, then as pds, was in no way engine, yes, not even contributing to historical change.
Rather, it was driven that went to the old sed lead in opposition alone. The pds is a child of the sed internal response to the transition forced by the people. Until marz 1990 she acted as a government party, only then she became opposition. In the following years, she rose in the east german federal tags to the influential regional party, while she did not play a role in the western national landlords.
This was necessary, as after election losses and internal conflicts from 2002 a realignment was required. In 2005, the name was in "the left party.Pds" (own short name "the left.Pds" major, in 2007, she then signed up the wasg and acts from fortan as a party.
A party that trends in itself such a prehistory can not simply claim for pioneers, but has to gain them and especially to prove them. To do this as such a party is it in 1989 or 1990 or 2005 or 2007 at the point at zero — that’s the most important misleading, especially as at the leadership, far more but still in the membership of unuitable continuities exist. The left membership, superimposed in the eastern federal stanchars, shows this by far the highest average age in the german party landscape: 62.5 years.
The left relies on the rural state
That a party with such historical castles as well as personal kind of nationwide elmenting successes and not alone is considerably represented in the bundestag, but also in 13 out of 16 landings and in two state governments directly as well as those involved indirectly from north rhine-westphalia — how is this to explain? The explanation is not in that "democratic socialism" in the catch of the left sudden as a popular social model. Although in our society at all corners and ends crunches and crashes, even glamed and blazes — the readiness, radically new to think is (yet) not available. Rather, the explanation is to find that the development of the german society is increasingly opposing, opposing, influential, which is therefore deepening the cleavage of society that it gives profiteers and payers, but far more victims, laughter, losers, emigrated.
Only three impact lights on the order: at currently 40.47 million, including 27.67 million in social security contributions, 3.0 million people are unemployed.’and himself who has work, comes with the income far too often: from almost 1.4 million "get up" can be about 340.000 despite a full-time employment subject to social security contributions, their livelihood do not deny their own funds. Overall, 6.5 million people live from "hartz iv", of which 1.7 million children.
By completely severely criticizing these developments, it offers itself as a member of a "protective screen" for the unemployed, low-leahors, cheap jobber, temporary workers and hartz iv recipients. In fact, this term gave away the motive of the 2009 general election program.
How goods such a "protective screen" politically? First, the appeal to the image of a genital state that deals with his "fears" kummert, overnight.
For such a paternalistic point of view, not only the two driving horses gysi and lafontaine are located, also all the central political demands of the left "the state": grobbanken should bode nationalized and hedge funds, the financial sector should "public control" be subject. Energy companies are said to be nationalized, the train is not privatized. The public service should be "developed" and be expanded. A wide variety of tax maws should "a social redistribution from top to bottom" lead. "Just, balanced distribution funds are also important to start the democracy, because the freely financial funding also gives political power." by means of such tax policy, public finances should be achieved and raised. Extensive investment programs should create two million new jobs.
With these goals, the party operates on the distribution level — and exclusively on the distribution level. That left parties have always put on it, one could also trust that others, usually the "bosen capitalists" generate what you then involve to distribute, that can also be "the left" unbreakable. In this respect, the party has the flywheel of its electoral successes, the remedy of many residents over the persons induced by the spd "agenda 2010", no new perspectives added. You hold yourself in your role as a complementary, as a well-weather particle caught. At times of the prosperatat, this can be raised in election results, in the times of the crisis rather not. Because even sympathizers and attachments of the left ancestors that the gross redistribution in economically heavy periods is hardly affordable. Therefore "the left" extended from the full fate — during crises lackable to paste on pail.
The left is a protest party without a defined design claim
The fact that the party is not able to raise a defensive form of design does so that the program draft currently discussed is a possible compromise between three basic structures. "The left" units two very different parties alone, but at the same time different avashes. First, especially in the west, the left social democratic and trade union flight is perceived, its basic ideas for redistribution and control of capitalism prage the program design: "left reform projects" for one "policy change". To tame, say the anti-capitalist and communist critics. Your argumentation for one "system change" objectives on communism as "pretty far up utopia" (sahra wagenknecht), desperary as well as "concrete alternative to capitalism" on what you "socialism" to name.
The laue compromise formula of these two flights remaining in traditional policy thinking: "we want a democratic socialism of the 21. Century, which meets today’s social and global challenges and possibilities." in the shadow of the old bearings, however, a further electricity, which keeps brought up positions and is a new way. That "forum democratic socialism" (fds), one of 25, associated with the articles of association within the party, as well as the group "emancipatory left" search coming challenges through a significantly expanded policy of policy, by criticizing state fixation and growth imperative, by emphasizing individual freedom rights, through the goal of one "new constitution of the working company, through the investment "queer-feminist view" to meet work and reproduction of reproduction. Its 13 theses read their way around a radical reform program for the party, which was allowed to consider their majority decidedly.
Especially this broadlike view illustrates how reduces the basic guidelines of the "left" fail. Still at the most radical program target, the transformation of the property structure, this becomes clear. In the program design, it is called:
A crucial question of social change is and remains the ownership question. Economic power also means political power … The left fight for the change in ownership. We want a radical renewal of democracy, which also extends to economic decisions and subject to vital forms of title of emancipatory, social and ecological mabs … Structure-determining coarse farms of the economy do we want to overcome in democratic social forms of ownership and capitalist property overweight.
As if there were no historical experiences that public or state or bousteignum does not bring any progress per se, the longstanding miracle wonder of past times is accidentally summoned. To a real design of the company, the party is not in a position in its current endurance, because promise of growth can only complain about who actively and positively basic, guidelines, goals to determine or to name at least.
Who about "social justice" postulated, is to explain in the delivery debt, in which wise economy and state should be organized to it "fairer" can. For the foreseeable future "the left" to the role as a protest party against social disapproval remain and real political successes can at best be achieved as correct. In addition, it is uncertain whether the position steams can not be opened again under the aircraft and current.