The »Yes, No, Maybe?« of Parliamentarism
Surprise, surprise: we’re not fans of states or nations, and when we cast our ballot papers into the voting box every four years, we don’t do it with much hope. Nevertheless, we’d always prefer a parliamentary democracy to authoritarian systems. And, of course, we’ve also noticed the hype surrounding the Left Party Die Linke and its new faces: Who could resist when a track by SSIO plays alongside the new Reichinnek-Edit? Reason enough to ask what we can – and cannot – expect from a growing left-wing party.
The World’s Biggest Talk Show?
At first glance, parliaments may seem like a giant talk show where we get to vote the guests in and out every few years. But they do more than just make speeches and produce snippets for social media. For example, they can change the rules governing how we live together as a society through legislation, and have a say in how the state raises money – whether through taxation or by taking out loans. And what it spends that money on – or chooses not to spend it on: living spaces, swimming pools, tanks.
Yet this political representation of the population also has its contradictions and limitations: not all adult residents of a country are allowed to vote, nor do they have any real influence over what the elected representatives get up to between elections. As a rule, the only options on the ballot are those that do not seek to fundamentally change the way society is organised. And that is no coincidence: on the one hand, intelligence services such as the so called Verfassungsschutz – the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution – keep a close eye on this. On the other hand, all candidates agree to abide by certain rules of the game once they enter parliament. In today’s world, organised around capitalism and the nation-state, (co-)governing means promoting »Germany as a business location« economically vis-à-vis the rest of the globe – at the expense of other countries and large sections of its own population.
Although there is no real co-determination on the issues that matter in our lives, capitalist democracy already gives many people the feeling that they have been sufficiently involved. People are then happy to hand over further responsibility to politicians. This is partly because many believe that politics takes place only in town halls and parliaments. Yet social negotiation processes happens wherever people come together: lobbyists, demonstrators and student representatives are all engaged in politics too.
It Could Always Be Worse
Even though we have fundamental criticisms, we on the left cannot avoid the question: how much political wiggle room is there within a capitalist economic system? For many people, the primary concern is not whether we will one day overcome this rotten system, but whether they will still be able to pay their rent tomorrow or make reasonably free decisions about their own bodies. And left-wing politics can, at least to some extent, demonstrate that things could be different.
But more importantly: an enormous amount can also be taken away from people through the parliamentary process. And far more than the legalisation of cannabis. If our friends are deported today, or if we are once again forced into compulsory military service tomorrow, these are decisions made in the Bundestag. So staying out of these struggles and failing to confront political opponents where they are currently at their strongest – in parliament – cannot be the practical answer either. That would also be cynical towards those who suffer most from the right-wing restructuring of the state and who can be helped in very concrete ways. Because unfortunately, it doesn’t help an asylum seeker right now if, in the distant future, borders were to become a thing of the past.
Furthermore, the climate crisis and its ecological tipping points mean that the social framework is set to change irrevocably. Quite apart from doomsday scenarios, time is running out if we are to at least mitigate these changes. Our political strategy should also be guided by this.
We also believe it is wrong to condemn, across the board, all those who choose to get involved in party politics. Many people become politically active through political parties. In rural areas in particular, the places to go are limited for left-wing activists. Furthermore, political parties are often far more accessible than clandestine anti-fascist groups, where simply trying to find a way to make contact can often become an impossible challenge.
Give up the Balaclava?
As is well known, Antifa is about hands-on work. And perhaps »getting your hands dirty« these days means not only taking the streets away from the far right, but also: stepping in chambers, shaking hands and drafting bills. In that case, however, people should be aware of what they’re getting themself into.
Parliament not only curbs our protest, but also those who take part in this circus: the Green party, for example, emerged back then from strong and radical protest movements such as the peace, women’s and anti-nuclear movements. They wanted to implement the changes demanded by those movements in the 1970s through parliament.[1] What has become of the party is history: in 1999, Joschka Fischer gave the go for bombing Yugoslavia; the Greens went along with the disastrous cuts to social services in the form of Agenda 2010; and today they are happy to participate in a 100-billion-euro special fund for the military.
This is also partly due to the logic of party politics: anyone who has spent years putting up election posters, building up a position within a party and finally winning a seat usually wants to keep it – not least because one is reluctant to give up a monthly salary of over €10,000. And »those who have made a name for themselves through politics rather than through criticising politics lose interest in changing or abolishing the institutions« (Agnoli). Integrity must then take a back seat to the political career, and what were originally strong positions are very quickly watered down. Anyone who chooses to get involved in party politics must not only endure tiring hours of general debates at party conferences and local group meetings, but also a whole bunch of contradictions. Finding a productive way to deal with these is far more difficult than simply pushing one’s doubts aside and becoming a full-on party soldier.
However, it would be too simplistic to attribute all this to personal failure. Many of those who founded the Greens back then were anarchists and shared our desire for a classless society. The fact that the party has nevertheless moved ever closer to the centre-right since its foundation shows how aspirations for radical change shatter against the stone façades of the Bundestag. Parliamentary proceedings reach their limits, if not before, then certainly when it comes to fundamental changes – that is, when the whole system is at stake: only issues that do not go beyond the framework of capitalism and the nation state can be negotiated. Neither the government nor the opposition can introduce anything better in parliament than the constraints of state, nation and capital.
Best of Both Worlds?!
So political parties aren’t the answer, but neither can we do without them. What now?
We shouldn’t be asking ourselves »the streets or parliament?«, but rather thinking about how the two relate to one another. If we engage with parliamentary projects – whether critically and in solidarity, or by actively participating – then we must do so without illusions: not personalizing hope, not mixing up social media posts with class struggle. And above all: not giving up organising and protesting for the sake of elected representatives. Political parties can strengthen struggles, provide resources and raise visibility. But they are no substitute for broad roots in society.
In the end, neither hype nor full-on hate is of any use. Support where concrete improvements are achieved through parliamentary channels. Criticism where the limits of this approach become apparent and where people allow themselves to be talked into a false sense of »state responsibility«. A clear understanding that a classless society is not created in a chamber, but in the social struggles that put pressure on it.
So shall we join Heidi on the barricades? Perhaps. But the barricades are not in the Bundestag. And if we look for them there, we should know that they are made of papier-mâché.
For Further Reading:
Johannes Agnoli: Die Transformation der Demokratie und verwandte Schriften. 1967. 16,50 €.
[1] At least, that was true of a large part of the party at the time: even back then, it was a melting pot of diverse political currents, ranging from radical left-wingers to conservative and right-wing politicians who viewed environmental policy as a form of »homeland protection«.
