I really can’t explain where Politikverdrossenheit (political apathy) comes from.
edit: The last sentence is sarcasm
A list of seven rejected laws. I think there was one more in the last decade.
In both the example above and this example, what was taken as "ceremonial" (especially since the advent of much, much better forms of communication than what was available the 1790s) was still the the lawful course. Our systems of government are held together by the belief in and affinity to perform duty according to precedent.
The convention expected was the GG would announce these appointments, he didn’t and put out a statement when it was found out that literally said “oh yeah not my job sorry you thought it was”
https://www.gg.gov.au/about-governor-general/media/statement...
I understand... it's simple... someone does something bad, nothing happens to them... bad thing again... nothing happens... people protest... nothing happens... bad thing again.. nothing happens...
If this was some other timeline, and people brought guillotines out every couple of years and "dealt with" the "bad" politicians in "the french way", politicians themselves would be calling for jail sentances, because they'd atleast be alive in there.
Otherwise, i live in a different country, and the political situation is the same.
Also let’s be clear, the reign of terror was an absolute shit show in every since of the word as was killing the king. 30 years of war just to have another monarchy to overthrow isn’t exactly a great move.
It's a shame. We tend to criticize EU for a million valid reasons, but once in a while when they do something right, our government first reflex is to just ignore it.
[1] (German) https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2022-09/vorratsdaten...
Though if the next cabinet in a few years includes the CDU (christian democrats), they'll try again.
[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p093wy1r/cant-get-you-... ,
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Herold ,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Urbach
Or later the Celle Hole
We're literally living in a time where "global" namespace changes are made willy nilly by people who don't even spend the time reading everything they may have an effect on by doing them, which is just accepted as being "impossible".
Further, the only people with the time/resources to engage in politics in a tangible way are pgobably the most disconnected people from the way of life for the polises they are shaping.
Human beings are ruthless energy optimizers (biological constraint), and the cognitive load of actually productive political engagement is absurdly high. Thus, people with literally anything else to do avoid it, or find it pointless, leaving only those so bereft of anything else to do to be the most impactful on that arena. Which in turn creates more for the disengaged to have to do to keep them from getting in the way...
It's a vicious cycle.
If you are disappointed with politics that is a reason to vote. If you don't care, that's a valid reason not to vote
the whole system is broken. the parties waste most of their energy to fight each other instead of cooperating to actually solve problems. i want to throw out the whole lot and replace it with a system that is actually representative of the communities. is there any party anywhere that can achieve that?
Maybe the Swiss with their voting on all issues system, are a step in the right direction.
Would you tell people in China, "if you are disappointed with politics, vote in your People's Congress elections?"
Why not vote? What is the advantage of that?
I mean even in the DPRK, you can vote for whoever you want. Its what happens afterwards..
This is like saying 'yeah but what if the car turns out to be electric" if I told you to change your oil every 5k miles
Does giving legitimacy to voting accomplish anytime? What about protesting the system by not voting, does that do anything?
What do you mean by this? If I (a dictator) were to hold an election but require 90% approval to unseat me, that would be a "legitimate" process because it includes voting?
Do you not understand what I am saying?
> What about protesting the system by not voting, does that do anything?
Arguably yes. Afghanistan's state legitimacy collapsed as basically fewer than 10% of people voted in any of it's elections and then the government fell.
Counter is that participation in European country elections is also low, though probably higher than 10 percent, but that didn't cause them to fall
The people in charge are the ones who pick the two almost identical candidates. There will be no change in economic or foreign policy regardless of winner.
(Edited, the other way is to push hard core identity politics where demographic groups are owned by certain parties, so voting has all the legitimacy of a mere census. The only way to influence policy would be having (or not having) children)
If you disagree with both of those things, voting has no positive and results only in negatives.
Simpsons did it: "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos"
Counter In europe many elections have extremely low turnout but governments are considered legitimate
Also any changes that come from those institutions follow the real progress that gets made by common people.
"A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote." - Henry David Thoreau
If you have a one-party system, then all it means that the actual policy choices are made not by parties, but rather by factions or individuals within the one party, so if you want to change things, then the levers of change are obtained not by being a voter (or candidate) and having your party gain positions in the country but by being a party member (or official) and having your faction supporters gain positions in the party.
This is very reductive, you've lost sight of the trees and only see the forest. Politically apathetic people have a wide array of personal reasons for being the way they are. You don't know what's going on in all of their lives, you can't reduce all of their life experiences and feelings into one big conspiracy.
No need to be 'verdrossen'.
It would be worse if the courts just approves all laws the government conceives.
Or for some reductio ad absurdum: Slavery is legal for 10 months per year, but every October the Slavery Legalization law gets struck down by the courts, proof that our democracy works.
This is probably one of the cases where lawmakers feel some spite about constitutional courts exerting too much influence over their work. It would be easier if they’d just talk about it before going through the whole process but I guess creating frustration is part of the point here.
1. The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent 2. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court 3. It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury
Talking in advance about what law is constitutional would be perverse under such system (I love the standing doctrine, btw and so does the Chief Justice).
After DataRet was stroke down by the Constitutional Court, our Justice Minister Vincent Van Quickenborne pushed for a new data retention that only targets 100% of the surface of the country:
https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/targeted-data-retention-onl...
Either memories are short or there is political fantasy of being control freaks going on
It comes from voter indifference.