In Germany, the traffic light coalition is coming to an end. As pretty as the name sounds, the image that the government team has presented to the public seems to be just as ugly, which is mainly due to the fact that the politicians can never agree on the issues at hand and are constantly arguing with each other in public.
The electorate demands calm, order and security, but the cabinet is a nonsense booth. Is there no other way? I don't think so.
"The cabinet is a nonsense booth.
Is there no other way?"
Before that, a comment on voting in a party democracy. When a party elects a leader, there is usually only one candidate standing; if there are two contenders, there is talk of a contest, which means that in both cases there is nothing to vote for. The electorate does not have this either if the parties try to forge coalitions after the votes have been counted, as is the case now. Governments are expected to do something.
To clarify whether politicians and other people can know what they are doing, one has to ask whether there is a political theory or philosophical discipline that offers decision-makers suitable criteria for selecting and implementing the right measures. Strangely enough, the answer is not just a resounding "no". In fact, according to the historian of ideas Isaiah Berlin, the opposite is true. The scholar reflected on "Machiavelli's originality" and found the lesson of human history described in the Italian Renaissance philosopher's book "The Prince". It consists in the irresolvable dilemma that values such as individual freedom and the common good can contradict each other and that a rational or even objective decision between them cannot be reached by anyone or anything.
Berlin speaks of a historical turning point in political thinking. Since then, people have had to choose between incompatible value systems in the course of their existence. Berlin thinks Machiavelli through to the end when he writes: "The view that the correct and objectively valid solution to the question of how man should live can be discovered in principle is itself fundamentally wrong. I believe there is nothing more destructive to human life than a fanatical belief in the perfect life." When these thoughts are brought into the lowlands of German politics, it becomes clear that we have to be grateful to the Ampel for arguing. Its representatives acted humanely and in accordance with the philosophy of history. Their successors should try nothing else.
