SWZ: Your talk about disaffection from the political parties: Why do you think it is that way?
Patricia Springborg: This is the question the major parties are asking. The SPD has lost about two thirds of its membership over the last decades. I think it is partly a question of political education, people are looking for different things in politics. They are issue-oriented above everything else. So these traditional loyalties to a party have dropped away partly because their parties are in many ways old fashioned and haven´t kept up with young people. We have more single issue parties, such as Greens or ‚Alternative für Deutschland‘. They drain off people. And people have a notion of democracy that is more plebiscitary, which is what in a way brought these right wing parties to power.
People feel they should have a popular vote on everything, whereas democracy has ever since the second century been representative, that means that people delegate their power to a representative who is usually better educated than the average member of the public, who has political experience and has passed several tests before getting into government.
The idea of democracy is that people delegate their power. People don´t seem to be content to do so any more, they want to take power in their own hands. And some of these populists, one might say, demagogues like Grillo or the member of the Golden Dawn in Greece, encourage people in the view to participate directly in politics on the street, through demonstrations and so on. People are no longer educated in the practices of representative government.
You speak about the failure to understand what representation and rule of law entail. Would you please explain your point of view?
It took a long time to establish the principle of a legal opposition, which was developed first in England as the idea of ‘Her Majesty´s Most Loyal Opposition‘. This means that the opposition is entitled to put its positions to object as far it can to what the majority´s party does, but in the end, when the final vote comes, they have to accept the decision of the majority.
The Tea party in the US is the most obvious example of the violation of this principle. ‘Obamacare‘, the legislation for national health insurance faced enormous obstacles and tests, but finally passed through both houses of Congress and was ratified by the Supreme Court. Yet this splinter of the Republican Party is still determined to overturn these laws by fair means and foul. The mainstream of the Republican Party is alarmed by this, the party Whips can´t bring these people to order. They are simply dogmatists who are absolutely intent on rolling back all of Obama´s legislation. This is the denial of rule of law and the principles of a parliamentary opposition and how it functions.
Can we apply these ideas also to Berlusconi?
Yes, I think that´s right. Not only did Berlusconi do so much harm when he was in power, but his attempt to grab power back is without any respect for the law. It is very difficult for governments to deal with people like this, because the rules and procedures are designed for law-abiding people. So the situation is really terrible, let´s hope it´s over now.
Is the public maybe too informed, and often badly informed to make it possible for the governments to make good long-term decisions?
I think that´s right. The public is driven by demagogues, they are driven by certain issues which they focus on, and of course the long term and big picture, which has been discussed by specialists and committees in the government parties, is lost. They are completely frustrated because they are constantly bombarded by these single issue parties.
Has the world become too complex as to allow the voters to know what´s good for them in the long run?
When it comes to economics, it´s true. People are mystified, disappointed, they feel alienated by these governments that tax them a lot and seem to have no power over financial institutions. In Germany there is a phobia about financial institutions.
Economists are all educated the same way, so they speak the same language. Even if their models are not perfect, governments and institutions by and large function. This tirade over capitalism is too general to help us. We live in a capitalistic world! That said, I do admire Pope Francis, who has a completely different kind of authority (and is not responsible for day-to-day secular government) for speaking out and encouraging people to find a solution to poverty and the systemic evils of capitalism, youth unemployment, indebtedness and consumerism.
How can people be educated so that they see through populist promises?
I think this is the virtue of education in general – in particular the humanities. These have suffered a lot with all the specialisation and all this focus on business, there is no doubt about it. There is a long tradition that goes back to the third millennium BC. But from the 4th century BC in Greece and Rome the tradition of the liberal education begins, the ‚artes liberales‘, which made people study history and philo-sophy, equipping them to analyse, to argue rationally, to deliver their positions.
Around 1968 the classic curriculum, which had lasted so long, was abolished. But if you don´t know the long history on the birth of democracy and it´s evolution you don´t know what it´s all about! It has gone through trial and error all these years.
Of course there are some universities who still do care about this background knowledge, such as Bolzano with its Bachelor of Science in Economics and Social Sciences. I have taught these students for almost 10 years, and they were very interested in topics such as the birth of democracy.
What else could we do to make sure that countries have better governments?
This cynicism about politics doesn´t help. It´s very difficult to recruit good people.
Südtirol does a good job, Kompatscher seems to be a very competent person. Then of course, Südtirol has a particular history. That´s why I thought it was particularly dismaying that in Südtirol and Trentino so many people didn´t vote in the last election. That is not a good sign, but this is a difficult time politically and economically, and people register their frustration by withdrawing from politics. However these danger signals have to be taken note of.
Once again, political education has a lot to do with it. People have to understand, which they can only do not by indoctrination, but by knowing history politics and the social sciences, they have to see for themselves how society functions and how we need leadership. After all, it seams strange that politicians rank really low on the scale of jobs that people want.
What expectations should we have toward the understanding of democracy by the people in the countries of the Arab Spring?
Many of these countries suffered colonialism and military occupation. During this time they were given no experience of government participation. Unlike most Commonwealth countries with white settlers, where over a period of almost 50 years the local people gradually participated more and more in government. These ‘white’ colonial settler states were virtually self-governing at a certain point so that the only power left to the Crown was foreign affairs. But the occupying powers gave the subjugated people in Middle Eastern states no experience of political participation under their rule. The British in Egypt, the French in Syria and Lebanon, the Italians in Libya, simply did not prepare these peoples for self-governance because they were extractive economies who behaved like occupation powers still do, with no regard for the welfare of these peoples.
And when independence came unexpectedly after World War II …
At that point people had no experience of parliamentary democracy, so the only institution which could step in was the army, and they became military regimes. There would have even been some hope, because there were indeed long standing political parties that go back to the beginning of the twenties century in places as Egypt or Syria and most other Arab countries. They had had old liberal or even socialist parties in the past. These parties had agitated to get some power, but the West didn´t let them, because they were afraid that the Islamists would come to power. Of course, if they had let things take their course, moderate Islamists would have come to power. Instead they put the lid on things to such an extent, that frustration grew and grew. With Google, Facebook and Twitter, people came out on the streets and were able to mount mass demonstrations and topple military regimes. Facebook and Twitter can bring people out onto the streets, but they cannot create political institutions! So the result is just chaos. How could Western governments not have seen this? Political scientists know very well that institution building is a long process. The history of democracy took millennia to produce the representative democracy we have today. It defies the imagination how they could expect these people to get there almost overnight!
