Daring More Parliamentarianism

The original idea of representative democracy was that the elected representative, as the voice of his constituents, would defend the interests of the citizens against the increasing thirst for power of the state and its government. “No taxation without representation” was one of the key slogans in this regard. In the early stages of parliamentarianism, one could still assume that the differing fundamental stances of the parties allowed for a choice between lists representing more market economy and less state influence, or indeed a planned economy and total state control. However, this potential choice has now been significantly restricted by the convergence of various party ideologies.

The contrast between parliament as the representative of the citizens’ interests and the government, which strives for more state, has now worn thin. The parliamentary majority determines the government, whose leadership is identical to the leadership of the party. The task of the government party’s parliamentary group is to find a majority for government concerns in parliament. The MP becomes – as a retiring government party MP put it in a personal conversation – a mere rubber-stamping and hand-raising machine.

While parliaments do have a right of initiative, in the so-called real constitution, laws enter parliament as government bills. They are written in ministries by civil servants (in Austria, also in the chambers), traded off between party and government leaders in coalition governments based on the partner’s interests, and discussed in committees as a matter of form, only to be rubber-stamped in the plenary after a debate (government versus opposition).

The political real constitution is therefore the greatest problem for the actual idea of representative, parliamentary democracy. As a result, the state and its bureaucracy become the true rulers. The state expenditure ratio rises, the system stagnates. “The more functions a state takes on, the harder its administration is to control,” to quote the fourth of the 20 Social Laws of Inverse Proportions by Felix Somary.

It is strange that this question is hardly an issue in political debate (not even during election campaigns). Only a single – still young – opposition party has voiced its opinion on the matter.

We do not need more and more MPs who have made it onto the list through the favour of the respective party leader (whether at state or federal level), but candidates who fight for a free mandate. Strong party leaders are not what is required, but strong and freedom-loving representatives!