By Armin King
Political participation was long an unloved child: constitutional law, political science, the class of political representatives - nearly all considered that direct citizen participation, with greater or lesser degree of skepticism. Critics called it a dazzling concept of participation, which stood since the 1950s in the criticism. He was considered a fashionable word, was as indeterminate, columnist and vague or in the late 60s as a rallying cry in political controversy of the reform and democratization debate perceived. "Participation as a political battle cry" corresponded to Schmidt Glaeser "largely in the image of his target, democratization '. Nestled in one, democratization Rush (Dürig) it disturbs the general participation little euphoria that efforts are sufficient grounds for a scientific requirements in proportion to the extent of the participation requirements. " [1]
This, however, was a pretext. It was not just a lack of reasons for participation, the scientific requirements were sufficient. Ultimately it was the elites, which, combined with a strong executive the action of the State, some traditionally to a general ward off the unwanted citizen participation and involvement, which was characterized as alien to the system [2].
were made more efforts to encourage greater direct participation of the population to the restrictive principle of a limited administrative public that it external was almost impossible to obtain the necessary information for decisions. Even less of a citizen participation process was to think. It took place only marginally, was also in times of reconstruction is not taken to be important. They contented themselves with material wealth creation and pragmatic policy.
That should change in the late 1960s abruptly.
It was the time of the politicization and resurgence after 1968, when the establishment ("the muff robes of a thousand years") and his crusty regarded as structures were put in question, a time when Willy Brandt as chancellor with the demand "more democracy" the stagnation of a restorative post-war era and sought to overcome the first social-liberal coalition broad social reforms.
the student movement and the extra-parliamentary opposition (APO) called for new techniques of political protest, social participation in almost all areas - and this first set by it. And down the country were citizens' initiatives. Their number was estimated in 1973 throughout Germany to 1400 to 3000. [3] It was no longer possible to ignore these initiatives or to fight even, as it had sought the establishment parties and the executive branch first. The participation
idea made its appearance in many areas. Fritz Vilmar, in this connection "for children, groups of children / Elterngrup, schools, universities, community colleges, media, theater, public of contract administration, citizens' initiatives, juries, community planning, hospitals, prisons, factories, companies, economics, parties, trade unions, Churches. "[4] Throughout the early 1970s, discussed ideas and tried participation. After struggling at school participation laws to employee participation to participatory planning, to participation of employees in productive capital.
The Club of Rome put it: "Few words can the right of persons to be as clear decisions at both local and global level to determine their environment and their lives, to influence, in connection with their hope to accept equality, and their refusal to an offside position, or a subordinate status. Effective participation requires the effort of the people of integrity, dignity and his willingness to take the initiative. Although the right to participate can be guaranteed, neither can the participation nor the associated duty and responsibility to be given 'or given away. Real participation takes place voluntarily. " [5]
The conditions for this (voluntary) participation of citizens in political and administrative decisions better only time in 1971 with the Urban Development Act [6]. It was a consequence of the neglect of residents and "the shabbiness and spirituality of the city planning" [7] and the "Destruction of cultural urbanity" [8]. And it was a response to lack of legal protection of citizens against plans of the state. [9]
The new urban development law of the planned restructuring measures were immediately affected the chance of participation. The position of the concerned citizens of measures strengthened in local politics. Further strengthening was carried out with the Federal Building Act 1976 [10] with the extensive early participation of citizens in land use planning.
was also introduced into the Federal Building Act, the municipal development planning.
Despite "structural limitations of the reach of municipal development planning" saw Joachim Jens Hesse is "a number of actions and improvements over traditional planning process." [11] As examples of the extensions and improvements he mentioned especially the "pressure to innovate on the local political-administrative system" and the "exercise of political control function "[12]. Politics and administration came under pressure to justify.
was often the responsible participation of citizens in decisions about their present and future [13] by the incumbent therefore does not want it. Instead, there was suspicion of too much grass-roots democracy, first suspected the local Elites of the newly formed citizens' groups even "undermine the representative constitution and to establish in its place a system of councils to do" [14]. This has disillusioned many people who participated in actions with heart and soul of citizen participation. Against the prevailing opinion criticized stone this restrictive attitude: . "Thus, our country is in derogation of some, even the blood vessels through which his strength and initiative of the people her flocking" may [15]
This distrust more active as a result of a pragmatic use citizens by the government. "Instead of citizen initiatives more than legitimate and necessary tests, local Decision-making process for the interests and needs of citizens more permeable to accept really, they try to take the citizens' initiatives for their own policy on the duty. You do not get citizen initiatives on citizenship, but citizens generate applause. For an active policy of cooperation they are pursuing only to those initiatives, where they run no risk of having to cut back on their own positions. " [16]
Actual public participation was rare despite the many initiatives and in spite of the changed attitude of the authorities. Kodolitsch stated: "Everyone asks for more Participation, but does not realize she is " [17] Its interim conclusion: the cities . Have not only failed to demonstrate their participation will here, but they miss the opportunity to practice civic participation. Although this process seems to realize civic participation, to stagnate in the daily practice of local politics to time, but the impulses emanating from the legislative level (see again the efforts to amend the BBauG), make clear that public participation in future even be institutionalized is more extensive than previously. " [18] The mood
the social-liberal change of power lasted as little as the initial euphoria of participation. The local development planning with participation of its citizens could not meet the high expectations.
participation and planning euphoria was replaced by a Planungspragmatismus, who agreed in the face of growing commercialization at the lowest common denominator. Planning came under the general suspicion, to aggravate a variety of standards and normative regulations particularly large projects or delay.
To date, the predominant critical view of the concept of participation, although no longer a matter of principle, but as a result of disappointed expectations of the citizens involved. gave [19] Even so it often: that in just the local level and in organizations idealist ideas developed, then disappeared in the drawers or were discussed in more bodies or to death. Again and again, just problems in the implementation of the jointly developed concepts difficult.
This was grist to the mill of critics from the ranks of representative democracy, which saw participation has always been the wrong version of the implementation of the Basic Law postulate that all government authority emanates from the people. On the other hand is
Volker Gerhardt assessment, participation is "the principle of policy" [20] par.
His paradigm:
"All politics is based on the principle of participation . Because, no matter under what conditions and why policies are made: Always have a few (usually even many) people interact with the explicit aim to exercise power over a social group. You have to enter as parts into a whole, they act as his representative. So that they take active and passive stake in a power based on their conscious activity. The express sympathy for a social whole, which one - as this whole thing - get to create, to direct or change looking and which one is responsible, is participation. " [21] The democratic principle of a free and open expression and decision-making calls from the people towards the state organs in the state's decision-making opens (BVerfGE 20, 56, 97ff)." [22] Against this background
asked Susan Wickrath 1992, more citizen participation in decisions of public administration: "The right of regional planning and regional planning is not to his self-image and its citizen-oriented tradition. It can remain in the future for the relationship between the institutions of regional planning and regional planning and the citizens not take into account that at the level of , Space planning and zoning already substantial preliminary decisions are made on the later of the citizens can hardly influence. The lack of information on both sides have - possibly at the expense of the Germans in the Federal Republic of prevailing principle of limited administrative public -. Eliminate " [23]
is now in matters of transparency, participation and local control, some on the move.
A significant proportion of these experiences of German unification with the round tables and grass-roots decision-making processes of the disintegrating GDR, the proliferation of citizen initiatives and Public decisions, and external developments. The European Union has forced the break with standard specifications of the limited public administration with all its restrictions more or less. The change in the local constitutions in the countries with Mayor primaries and an increasing preference for the southern German mayor constitution be mentioned in this context.
"After several decades of a defensive attitude towards direct-democratic procedures, the state legislature after the reunification of a reform of the inner community constitution in motion that characterize it, without exaggeration, as a new stage of the participatory revolution can, " [24] note Gabriel / Walter-Rogg. This
were linked as early as the beginning of the 1970s, great hope, although it can be seen now a new thrust. In times of increasing economic pressures on local authorities will now "performance, responsiveness, flexibility and innovative capacity of the local political system" [ 25] can be increased. Also plays with the expectation that "the distance between citizens and local decision makers could be abolished."
As in the 70 years this time is the interim results from sober. It is determined that citizen initiatives and public decisions have little political relevance and lead a shadowy existence. However, a growing change in the community show, that a "numerically not insignificant minority of the population" [26] is willing to participate in the community ready - away from political parties and associations. Even through informal participation and increased transparency and political governance could be changed by committed citizens. Gabriel / Walter-Rogg see this as a positive, indirect effects of participation.
We see participation in principle positive. But it is not a panacea, but can also be abused, like the Swiss referendum to ban minarets in 2009 has impressively demonstrated.
© Armin king 2009
[1] Schmidt Glaeser, Walter (1972): Summary of the co-rapporteur on: participation in management decisions. In: VVDStRL 31, p. 259
[2] See, eg Isensee
[3] Kodolitsch, Paul von (1975): Local authorities and citizen initiatives. In AFK 2 / 1975, p. 266, footnote 8th
[4] Vilmar, Fritz (undated, presumably 1994.): Strategies of democratization: the balance after a quarter of a century. URL: http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/ ~ Vilmar / dembil.html
[5] Club of Rome (1979): The human dilemma. And future learning. Vienna / Munich. P. 58f.
[6] Law on urban redevelopment and Entwicklungsmaßnahen in the communities (Städtebauförderungsgesetz - StBauFG) v.27.07.1971 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 1125).
[7] Schildt, Axel (2000): Material wealth - pragmatic politics - cultural upheavals. The 60 years in the Federal Republic. In: Schildt, Axel, Siegfried, Detlef; Lammers, Karl Christian (ed.): Dynamic time. The 60e years in the two German companies. Hamburg. P. 37
[8] Schildt, op cit, p.37.
[9] See Battis, Ulrich (1976): Participation in Urban Planning Law. Berlin
[10] Federal Building (BBauB) idFd Bek v. 18.8.1976 (BGBl I S. 2256, calcd Gazette I p. 3017)
[11] Hesse, Joachim Jens (1975): State community development planning. In: AFK 2 / 1975, p. 293
[12] Hesse, supra, p. 293
[13] See Strange, Waldemar: What is participation? Definitions - Systematizing. URL: http://www.kinderpolitik.de/beteiligungsbausteine/pdfs/a1_1.pdf
[14] Kodolitsch (1975), p. 265
[15] Stone, p. 1321, Rn. 8.
[16] Kodolitsch (1975), p. 270f.
[17] Kodolitsch (in 1975), p. 276
[18] Kodolitsch (1975), p. 277
[19] Last Holtkamp, Lars (2007).
[20] Gerhardt, Volker (2007): participation. The principle of the policy. Munich.
[21] Gerhardt (2007), p. 472
[22] Stein (1989): 1321, para. 8
[23] Wickrath, Susan (1992): Civic Participation in the law of, spatial planning and zoning. Münster (= contributions to the settlement and housing and spatial planning). P. 175
[24] Gabriel, Oscar W. and Walter-Rogg, Melanie (2006): citizen initiatives and public decisions - consequences for the local government decision-making process. In: German journal of urban studies (DFK) 2006/II, p. 39 f.
[25] Gabriel / Walter-Rogg (2006), p.40.
[26] Gabriel / Walter-Rogg (2006), p.39.
Armin King
0 comments:
Post a Comment