Reflection Paper on the Future and Transformation of Political Leadership (GE and EU)
I. Background
II. 'Enlightenment': Actualization, Renewal, Ensuring
III. LDBO, Parliamentarism, Federalism (GE and EU)
IV. "Coopetition": Transition to 'Integrated Market Economy'
V. Recommendations
I. Background
After
more than 70 years of democratic political leadership in the German
and (western) European societies, the forces of mandatory perception,
control and future-oriented design of mechanisms and processes are,
if not exhausted, at least "used out" and must be put to
the test. Ultimately, governing was to be identified more as reacting
than representing and administering daily political demands.
In
this way, the form and substance of government drift dangerously
apart and can only be brought into an appropriate balance and
consistency through internal quality testing, through clarifying
self-improvement and self-critical qualification. Then, instead of
just confirming political "realities" according to surveys,
political leadership can again correspond to their actual
functionality / responsibility: to understand political determinants
and normativity as factors of consistent development dynamics and
progress processes of free societies and to master them in a
coordinating manner.
This applies all the more as today, in contrast to 1980 et seq., there are clearly more and more far-reaching structural conflict and crisis developments. Freedom, the rule of law, and democracy are no longer available, and their continued existence has become extremely fragile both internally and internationally. Authoritarian governments and dictatorships are extremely inhuman, at the same time highly "efficient" and like to see themselves as winners in the so-called system competition, which increasingly leads to "democracy" (formally democratic, actually dictatorial). The pathological finding of this condition can be classified under: quantitative-materialistic supported nihilism! In addition, the short-sighted, destructive use of so-called "artificial intelligence" provides the mastery of technocratic-bureaucratic enforcement capacity, the ability to "guillotine" individual freedom on a massive scale - far beyond free and international legal systems.
At the same
time, crises and conflicts are usually man-made and at the same time
indispensable opportunities and challenges for substantial further
development in the sense of self-renewing power from (inner)
individual and social (self-) awareness: the innovation of the social
contract according to measure and in the middle of human dignity, the
return on the image of man contained in the Basic Law and the order
superordinate to it, the so-called free-democratic basic
order.
Thus, critical-creative, organizational-political
definitional achievements, especially as adjustment of future and
leadership ability, coincide with necessary social transformation
achievements: proactive design of innovative social process control,
updating and a priori facilitation of crises and conflicts within the
framework of strategic-visionary, political normativity and
legitimation systems. - The following three subject areas form the
central, substantial potential for initiating and consistently
qualifying the internally and externally effective transformation
process (outlined briefly):
II. 'Enlightenment': Actualization, Renewal, Ensuring
1 Innovative ways to strengthen individual awareness of freedom as the source code of spiritual, inner guidance - based on the historical experiences of the "external" freedom struggle: Recovering individual freedom of action from internal substantial reflection and ethical justification of external development spectra and their qualified mastery according to identical, reasonable thinking and emphatic Feel.
2 (Inner) freedom as a spiritually guided emancipation process from the formal conditions to the determinants of individual and social implementation: This emancipation is still an open process of "completion" and a central determinant of future social development. The outer becomes the consequence of the inner freedom, truthfulness, integrity, transparency, identification, verification.
3 From this, not only can an appropriate culture/educational policy and relocation into social processes be derived, but all the more intellectual quality assurance in the area of political leadership and personnel development; "Benchmarking" in particular of intellectual and human capacity / excellence as a constitutive condition of state responsibility within the framework of empowerment: self-reflection and overall reflection and judgment - independent of formal and content-related (power) political positions, ideologies and half-value knowledge of power.
4 Associated with "enlightened" political leadership is the de-economization, de-materialization and de-monetization of the social concept of performance as a humane quality generation of interaction processes in innovative-creative cooperation societies. Above all, an ethical normativity is created that is a convincing, sustainable alternative to: quantitative-technocratic nihilism, authoritarian-dictatorial "equal treatment", creeping erosion of formerly free societies towards "democracy". The political leadership will then again understand statehood as empowering free societies and processes and coordinate them in a responsible and future-oriented manner - lean, competent and creative-visionary.
5 The "physical"
resonance space of societies is thus reconnected with metaphysics,
and at the same time understood as a privileged source of
"productivity". The focus is no longer on the formally
acting egocentric and political power, but on the transpersonal human
being: responsibility and discourse ethics instead of pure benefit
and consensus ethics, awareness and being instead of having, joy
instead of fear, self-determination instead of heteronomy, creative
domination instead of "impoverishment" , free design
instead of compensation, quality instead of just quantity - if and to
the extent that political leadership is primarily understood as
"leading by example" (Gandhi).
III. LDBO, Parliamentarism, Federalism (GE and EU)
1
After almost 75 years of German constitutional reality on the basis
of the Basic Law and 'Germany in Europe', an analysis must be carried
out in particular with regard to the desired future viability: Are
the basic political functionalities still in coherence and
concordance with the normative functions of the Basic Law, but above
all with the so-called 'free-democratic basic order (ldbo)?
2
This analysis and evaluation is a key prerequisite for programmatic
organizational-political classification and future adjustment of
political will. Normative, regulatory and legitimation functions are
central pillars of strategic political leadership, daily political
requirements are to be balanced with them and not vice versa: the
derivation of normativity and legitimation from (assumed) political
reality describes the smooth transition to "democracy".
This is to be averted and neutralized with high alert vigilance if
the parameters of the fdGO are also indisposable as action paradigms,
for example in the case of crises and conflicts, and are enforced
without exception. Because in every day-to-day political re-action,
only the directed action component that reflects the fdGO is
strategically normative.
3 The policy analysis should first be set up in the area of parliamentarianism. Not only the coherent, consistent functioning of the separation of powers and/or questions of representative / direct democracy (e.g. mixed forms) are actually to be checked for their future viability in accordance with the fdGO and GG. For example, the so-called faction discipline as a possible paralysis of the individual decision of conscience is central. Above all, however, the parliamentarism functions in the context of German EU membership must be closely correlated with the parameters of the fdGO:
The European democratic deficit caused by "idle
runs" or vacuums of legitimation in the context of European
cooperation - ultimately currently a purely intergovernmental
coordination of "European governance" - can only be
overcome in the sense of an integrated European future on the basis
of parliamentary governance through the final will and implementation
of European sovereign Statehood to be resolved:
4 A
federation of the “United States of Europe” with comprehensive
sovereignty, at least based on the example of the Federal Republic of
Germany, has a future if the previous European parliamentarism is
significantly modernized and adapted in terms of the constitution and
the rule of law: through the introduction of a two-chamber system,
for example after the French-German one Role model. In addition to
the directly elected EU Parliament (with a free mandate), an EU
Senate should be established (on the basis of a charter or
constitution), then equipped with a direct mandate analogous to the
US type. The basis of the EU Senate is the 'Europe of the Regions';
their representatives / senators are made up primarily of committed
civil society, business, culture and, secondarily, representatives of
political parties. This is the only way to create real political
power for the EU. (see annex, separate introduction to European
governance: EU Senate)
5 With regard to the further, then essentially deepening development of Europe, it is quite appropriate to assume that only the complete fdGO-securing establishment of a European parliamentarism - with the 2nd chamber: EU Senate - will also guarantee a contemporary and future-proof European sovereign statehood also in terms of power politics will. To date, so-called "spill-over effects" and ultimately only external pressures have led to European unification steps / semi-cohesion.
A fully completed whole 'from
within' with all constitutional functionalities, this development of
the EU into the "United States of Europe" is still pending.
The Federal Republic of Germany is called upon from the center and
federal historicity of its fdGO to generate this process as a driving
force and to lead it to efficient and qualified success in the long
term.
So the first step is the constitution-based introduction of a holistic European parliamentarism. This presupposes overcoming the semi-European facticity emancipatively and creatively, finally tackling a quantum leap in innovative qualification. In full consequence, this means at the same time that the fdGO-based United States of Europe does not have to be identical to the EU, but rather develops and constitutes itself concentrically within the framework of the existing EU contractual mechanisms (“increased cooperation” and “different speeds of development”). The significantly increasing centripetalism of the EU is finally turned transformatively through this integration achievement into the necessary federally based centrality and future-opening, real coherence from within.
IV. "Coopetition": Transition to 'Integrated Market Economy'
1 The 'social market economy' is by far the most successful model in German and international societies: free competition on the basis of a socially responsible model to ensure the balance between freedom and material justice. The welfare state became the “synallagma” of the rule of law and thus at the same time a central mechanism for safeguarding social peace as the “substructure” of the fdGO. This equilibrium between the functions of capitalism and social ownership, between individual freedom and social justice is the raison d'être of a humanistic society.
2 The question therefore needs to be asked: is the so-called strong state above all the well-funded welfare state? Are the necessary bureaucratic-technocratic economic controls and overstretching of state interventions viable for the future? Is the individual economic subject as a social “nuclear force” still part of the deliberative determination of justice? Is the assumption of material responsibility by the state to the current extent compatible with the ldBO? Has the majority society established itself in a paternalistic statehood that has assumed extensive responsibility beyond the level of empowerment? What kind of distributive justice does the legitimate authority of the state encompass? But above all: How can a normativity of regulatory power (government interventions and interventions in the market economy) in accordance with the ldBO be legitimized? What is the basic measure of ldBO-fair self-responsibility?
3 Distributive justice (or chances of generating it) only works within the framework of overall justice. This process of social consideration can be fulfilled if freedom is understood as a space of determinants and security as a space of existential conditions. Material security is also a condition of freedom, but never its basis. Because freedom determines the meaning and degree of security and controls the free, creative and innovative potential of individuals and societies. Only then can justice, including distributive justice, come about.
Within the framework of
the ldbo, the state is authorized to regulate the framework
conditions and/or economic entity in the area of infrastructure.
Above all, the market regulates the distribution and performance
justice, which is why the social market economy became the direct
systemic equivalent of the ldbo in the area of economy/ecology.
4 At the same time, it can be seen that the extremely successful social market economy requires at least a saturation among property owners, which increasingly poses a threat to progress and innovation. Due to the persistence of the material factual, social challenges of innovation, environmental justice and digitization cannot be met, especially against the background of globalization. Materially based egoism and technocratic-quantitative "sufficiency" - stabilized by rampant bureaucracy - cause the opposite of future viability and stability.
However, the 'will and vision' of the future absolutely need desired, targeted creative power and social freedom in order to ensure that the individual free performance potential can actually be used and made available as a driving force. In particular in the areas of environment/energy, internal/external security, security of supply/health and digitization (AI), systemic and structural undesirable developments and catch-up processes are urgent and only in quantum leaps of free productivity and human intelligence use in open and transparent social (scientific) dialogue transform.
5 The creative ability required for this is to be achieved in an appropriately politically guided, at the same time socially facilitated, process of qualification, de-monetization and – as a result – adequate humanization of interaction and performance. Cross-check: The future of authoritarian / dictatorial societies cannot be secured, since creative (adaptation and progress) dynamics are denied first of the individual human being.
Free and
social economic activity must be transformed from the traditional
polarity – employer / employee – of social partnership; The same
applies to 'product versus consumer', in order to understand
productivity in particular as a creative solution and service.
Competition is not only competition, but according to the basic idea
of the market economy as cooperative "serving" in the
sense of generating social prosperity with sustainable creative
capacity and as such "to be priced in". The consumptive
logic of 'competition' has to include the quality of the solution and
the performance conditions as well as ethically relevant
classifications. Above all, this system logic corresponds to the
human need for solidarity, to cooperate freely and to network in a
solution-oriented manner (regional and global, analogue and digital):
"coopetiton instead of competition".
6 This process of "enlightened" humanization (cf. I), especially in the work and service sectors, is to be facilitated "from above" as an ethical quality in a politically leading manner - sustainable, non-ideological, without "thinking" fads and in accordance with reason.
After humans entered
the so-called Anthropocene a few decades ago (humans as a largely
decisive creative and effective power on “their” planet), the
demands on their (self-) responsibility have increased exponentially.
Primarily intellectual-creative performance potential and
intelligence meet the requirements for mastering these challenges as
life and interaction processes. These spiritual potentials can
neither be replaced by so-called artificial intelligence nor are they
a kind of luxury of the “aesthetics” of the bourgeois
bourgeoisie, but have become a non-conditional determination of human
(survival) life. A further/longer subordination of this knowledge is
fatal and forfeits the realistic chances of a human future.
The (re)connection of the "superstructure" with the "substructure" is urgently needed and their polarity overcome through integration. In this understanding, the social to an 'integral market economy' is to be further developed, and the economic subject as cause and effect is to be understood consistently as a human being. For this it is necessary to develop a normative order, which is then to be initiated and communicated “from above” as an innovative, forward-looking quality in professional, socially guided political-economic dialogue processes.
V. Recommendations
As
a consequence of the "test bench", evaluation and
knowledge, the question of quality assurance of political leadership
processes, which is not only a question of working methods, but also
a fundamental one, has to be answered through a priori reflection and
strategic correlation of real developments.
As a rule,
governing – in the national and international context – is always
mastering the demands of day-to-day politics. Nevertheless, governing
is mostly reduced to reacting: the normativity of the factual is
regulated. Reacting, on the other hand, only produces governing when
re-action is directly linked to strategic action (or non-action). The
Actio describes the inner quality of the driving force, the
determination to use the day-to-day political occasion freely and
sovereignly in order to force strategic political governance - with
democratically required consideration of consequences and
consistency, transparency and normative legitimacy.
This
type of qualified governance, which is determined and creates
occasions (from within), secures and develops real democratic
processes. To develop this awareness of good leadership and good
governance in a sustainable manner and to guarantee it in a
qualitative manner, the following organizational policy
recommendations are proposed - based on the topics discussed
above:
Based on the example of a think tank, a respective advisory board should be established and set up in the sense of a permanent expert commission for short-term and long-term policy recommendations (including impact assessment and early warning, etc.), reporting directly to the executive committee and board:
Ethics Committee
Ensuring ethical legitimacy and security,
Qualification of freedom
processes, good governance
EU
Integration Advisory Board
Parliamentarism
reform, establishment of an EU Senate (see ANNEX as below), EU Governance
Integral economic
commission
reform process and facilitation of the further development of the social commission to the so-called 'integral market economy'
Author: J Michael Heynen
https://nomoi.webnode.com/
Reform
of EU Parliamentarism ANNEX
Establishment of an EU
Senate
Policy
Paper
on Transformative
European Governing: EU Senate
The
member states of the EU shape the legislative and executive process
of coordinated governance. This applies systematically, but not
automatically functionally: governance first requires the design of
political processes, then - derived from this - their implementation
and administration; and in addition applies to European governance:
the addition of national policies does not at the same time describe
the necessary transformative meta-level / meta-governance of European
(!) governance, but merely a supranational coordinating cooperation
and intergovernmental agreement. And the following also applies:
European governance is the control of social decision-making
processes and their implementation, not primarily the coordination of
respective national and/or economic interests.
In short:
For sustainable European governance, the EU needs a political
reconnection between those who rule and those who are governed, i.e.
a qualitatively transformative deepening of its decision-making
processes: institutional democratization and proactive
politicization.
This requirement can be met most
effectively by institutionally and functionally strengthening and
completing EU parliamentarism in accordance with the classic
free-democratic basic order within the framework of a bicameral
system: by additionally setting up and establishing an upper house,
i.e. an EU Senate.
Such an expansion and deepening of the
institutional EU structure by an EU Senate should ensure the
integration of the following transformative, complementary
functionalities:
1.
Reconnection of the political decision-making and decision-making
processes of the EU institutions with the European societies through
the establishment of a direct, imperative system of representation:
direct-democratic legitimation and political "commissioning"
of the senator; this syndicates the horizontal and mediatizes the
vertical political decision-making in the EU decision-making
process.
2. Use of a bicameral system for the introduction
of "hybrid" parliamentary governance: the generation of
comprehensive European political legitimacy on the basis of
"competing" mandates via direct and indirect
representation.
3. Political decision-making within the
framework of the EU Senate is not primarily carried out by the
so-called political parties, but essentially by individuals,
associations, NGOs, companies, dedicated groups and associations etc.
with an active will to shape things within the political spectrum of
the free-democratic basic order .
4. The geopolitical grid
of the EU Senate is based on the existing European metropolitan and
border regions (roughly analogous to the description by the EU
Council of Regions); national, formal areas of validity in the EU are
not the basis of the spatial definition.
5. The introduction and implementation of the functionalities of an EU Senate should also be ensured primarily on the basis of internet communication, the necessary digitization and use of artificial intelligence, i.e. through so-called e-government/governance, in order to ensure extensive participation beyond analogue political communication and to organize and facilitate inclusion within the framework of a proactive European democratization dynamic.
European
governance in particular is highly complex and, in this sense, of
course, cannot be additionally quantified through expansion, but
rather to be further developed in a targeted manner through
qualitative deepening. It is therefore incumbent on an EU Senate to
be set up not only to strengthen tried-and-tested parliamentary and
federal structures and actual subsidiarity, but also to promote the
expression, dynamics and participation of the to focus and moderate
the will of the central European citizens and to ensure transparent
implementation.
On this path, the path towards an actual
Europe of the citizens (not of the states), the EU can not only
democratically reform and transformatively legitimize itself, but at
the same time feed back the future of the EU with its historical
task: a real European citizens' movement for the establishment of a
federal system of the United States of Europe.
* * * * *
© 0 3 – 2 0 2 2 J M I C H A E L H E Y N E N
NO M O I I N S T I T U T E | B A D E N – B A D E N
