14 Oct. 2021 20:14
The FDP no longer wants to sit in the new Bundestag where it sat in the last. In addition to the AfD. She wants to be in the middle. But where is it? It is actually the “right-wing camp” that is overstaffed in this Bundestag. At least if you consider whose economic interests are being served.
by Dagmar Henn
“And as you go to bed, you lie, nobody covers you up there. And if someone kicks, that’s me, and if someone kicks, it’s you.”
Having seating arrangements in parliament is a bit like having a class at the beginning of the school year. Somebody always doesn’t like his neighbor or doesn’t get the seat he actually wants. With the neighbor you want, you can eagerly push little pieces of paper back and forth under the bench; But if you sit next to the wrong person, you suddenly find yourself cut off from all streams of information.
Parliamentarians have to endure their bank neighbors for four years, not just one. In this respect, one can understand a little that the FDP no longer has any desire to sit between the CDU and AfD on the right edge of the Bundestag. Especially since she is reluctant to be reminded that she once rightly took up the place on the right of the CDU. Despite some liberal exponents like Theodor Heuss, the FDP was, in the early years of the Federal Republic, rather the successor party to the DNVP and at the same time it was the parliamentary group with the highest proportion of NSDAP members.
But in the meantime the space to the right of it has been taken again by the AfD. The FDP has shaken off the brown spots on its lapel, and society no longer sees a market-liberal policy in the interests of the owners of capital as the right – but instead a policy that largely ignores the interests of the non-possessing classes as the left. So the coordinates are confused anyway and the FDP would like to cuddle with the Greens right in the middle, between CDU and SPD.
The Greens, on the other hand, only got this place because the SPD at that time, yes, there were such times, did not want to give up its claim to be left and pushed the new party, which at that time was still for peace, into the middle. Of which today’s troops should definitely move to the right, if the attitude towards war and peace still meant something when sorting them to the left and right.
In any case, it is clear that the AfD is on the right. With her share of von-und-Zus, she would even have been in the French National Assembly of 1789, from which the assignment to the right or to the left originates. The advocates of the republic sat on the left, the monarchists on the right. That was a long time ago, the AfD is not a monarchist party either, but the seating arrangement in parliament is also a ritual staging, and rituals are based on traditions.
After all, you have to sort out the parties somehow. Mixing them all up would make it necessary to actually count every vote, and it would make internal communication much more difficult. This is not compatible with a strictly hierarchical political practice with group constraints, and of course the margins towards other parties are communication fronts over which one or the other piece of paper wanders – and the FDP does not want to exchange any pieces of paper with the AfD …
Before the elections, there is always a small graphic with four quadrants on the Internet that is supposed to show the political orientation of the parties. There is a left to right axis that goes from economic positions and then there is the vertical axis that goes from libertarian to authoritarian. The whole thing is called a “political compass”. If you now look at how German politics has developed since 2005, you see that with the exception of the left, which is still lonely on the inner edge, all German parties are “right / authoritarian” “, with the FDP being the ” most right-wing ” and the AfD the ” most authoritarian ” party. This classification is based on the party programs. The left’s recent rapprochement with NATO is just as little depicted in it as the peculiar agreement on the Corona measures; If these two factors were included, there would probably not be a single party left that did not land on the “right / authoritarian” field.
If this consideration were to be taken seriously, the Bundestag would rather have the problem of who should sit on the left. After all, someone has to sit there. An honest representation of the political positions would require a half-empty parliament; but the now more than seven hundred deputies in the Reichstag cannot be accommodated on one half.
What luck for the FDP that left and right in everyday political consciousness are now allocated on the basis of criteria such as transgender rights. And closeness to the Greens is no longer a problem, unlike in the years when the latter were still knitting peace doves in sweaters and had not yet risen to become the second party of the higher-income earners. After a short exchange of notes, the two would probably agree on how to forbid the less wealthy from eating meat and at the same time ensure that the drive in the SUV to the health food store is not too expensive.
In any case, the left is allowed to sit further to the left, no matter how far it moves to the right, because the SPD no longer wants to be left. It is also difficult when such monstrous sins as Hartz IV adorn political history. In this way, at least the appearance of a broad political representation is retained, even if the first German parties could presumably slip over the right edge of the political compass in the next federal election. Or, thanks to Corona, at the same time break the sound barrier for the “authoritarian” criterion.
The CDU shouldn’t want to take part in the little tree-change-yourself; nothing would be more unpleasant for her than that the close relationship to the AfD becomes all too visible. But if a traffic light coalition should come about, there would be a majority in the Council of Elders who would approve the transplantation, and the most radical party in the republic should sit in the middle of parliament.
This is a position in which parties, from which the FDP is derived, were only found once. The liberals in the last people’s chamber in the GDR sat in the middle. But that’s not how the FDP meant it.
RT DE strives for a wide range of opinions. Guest contributions and opinion articles do not have to reflect the editorial team’s point of view.
more on the subject – Politics on the test stand: The neoliberal character of Western values (Part 2)