Our ambition with the JPoX – Journal on Political Excellence is to construct a platform where members of the political system can take one step back and reflect on the background conditions of the political organisation of our societies. Is democracy working at its very best? Could there be other ways of structuring our political system? How can things be improved?
A general consensus can be distilled from the numerous reactions and the extensive interest that JPoX has evoked: well established democracies are certainly in the need of reflection! There is a strong urge to transgress the realm of re-active politics and venture into thinking and dealing pro-actively in order to improve the political organisation of our societies. The contributors to this very first issue of JPoX all agree on this one point, exemplified by the assertion given by Cem Özdemir , Member of the European Parliament, in his interview to JPoX: “[Western] democracy is stable enough to go beyond the representative democracy – we can afford that!”
Outline and points of reference
The contributions we received for the pilot issue of JPoX are very diverse in approach and perspective. In this editorial reflection we will try so sketch the broad picture by bringing the thoughts and ideas of the authors together. First we address the points of reference as a guiding distinction, second we stress that participation is the common denominator, and third we tackle the diverging approaches for change. Last but not least the ex post status of Political Excellence will be elaborated.
The backgrounds of our contributors differ widely. So do their respective proposals for change. Each suggestion, however, is related to a point of reference. Hence, we think the distinction between local level, federal-state level, national, European and global level is very helpful. A seamless transition from one level to another is anything but sure, as each level is embedded in its specific context. Even though a transfer is difficult the ideas from different points of reference can serve as a source of inspiration. Best practice sharing within the same point of reference should be possible.
The political system of the European Union, for example, is a case of its own, simply because there is no equal point of reference. Franck Biancheri , President of the first trans-European party, refers to this special case.
He presents the advantages of having a European party with one programme in all Member States to run for the European elections. On that note, Alexander Graf Lambsdorff , Member of the European Parliament, proposes an amendment to the procedure for elections to the European Parliament. Constituents should get two votes, one for the list with trans-European candidates, and one for the list with national candidates. Furthermore, Graf Lambsdorff mentioned the Convention method as a success story for the European case. First introduced to prepare the draft treaty for the European Constitution, it was never really publicly promoted. Yet, this method is highly participatory as it includes multiple stakeholders.
Strengthen participation: a common denominator
We asked an assembly of international personalities to answer the question, what political excellence is from their point of view. Though we received contributions from very diverse parts of the political system – ranging from different disciplines of the academic world over the sphere of business and the realm of civil society organisations to politicians in office – the answers were surprisingly univocal. Extremely diverging in approach and perspective the vast majority of the contributions still have one common concern: to further enhance and in different ways develop the political participation of the civil society. Suggestions on how this is to be done are on the other hand as diverse as the contributions themselves.
Scholar of law Ramón Ruiz Ruiz holds that democracy should not only be about electing representatives every four years. For him, political excellence is defined through the widest possible participation of the citizens. Therefore, Ruiz Ruiz proposes changes in the institutional framework: the organisation of citizens through the internet, an increased decentralisation of power, and the enhancement of decision making capacities in civil society organisations. Furthermore, he makes suggestions on how to enhance “civic virtue” among the public.
Equally, the General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, Samuel Kobia , calls for building the capacity of all members of society to participate in the ongoing strive for political excellence. This is a moral imperative for him – one that can only be pursued by a strengthened civil society and political actors more embedded in the reality of the societies. In accordance with Kobia, the anthropologist Gregory Feldman describes the position of the “technocratic” political elite as out of touch with the society. Feldman underscores the importance of a dialogue between social pundits on the one hand, and the policy makers on the other. While the latter are those who can make political change happen, they usually do not encounter real world problems in their social reality. This is where the pundits can contribute. In addition, several authors have chosen to make some very concrete proposals in their contributions on how the civil society can be empowered.
Approaches for change
The contributors to this pilot issue are addressing three different starting points for change so as to alter the political system into an excellent one. Most scholars have recognized the voting procedures and all the other processes of the political system as the best way of changing things for the better. A smaller fraction of contributors wants to make a difference by discussing the importance of norms and values as the guiding principles of our society and thus the political system. Moreover, two scholars present holistic concepts of how to create better societies. While the one has identified the way we vote as the crucial lever, it is the tax system for the other one.
Unsurprisingly, the political practitioners have zeroed in on the political procedures because they are immediately affected if things are far from being perfect. Cem Özdemir holds that the political system of Germany is ready for more participation. Beyond doubt, the act of voting representatives is a very important element of democracy. However, this is not enough for being a fully democratic society. According to him, direct voting is an answer to the question how to overcome the unpopularity of traditional representative democracies – a problem most contributors point out. This particular case is addressed by the contribution of the economist Stefan Kotte .
From an institutional economics perspective, he is looking for optimal levels of delegation. Kotte shows that certain forms of direct democracy are very rational.
In addition, Özdemir makes a suggestion of how to change the election procedures. He brings in an example of the German local level, where the concept of cumulative voting (kumulieren) and cross voting (panaschieren) is successfully in place – at least in some Länder. However a transfer to the federal-state and national level is not seamless.
Other ideas of consequence are put forward by Graf Lambsdorff. He puts emphasis on the way political personnel is recruited in Germany. To avoid that politics is an attractive place for apparatchiks, the age of eligibility should be raised when politicians stand for a seat in parliament. Likewise, to introduce a requirement that politicians would have to substantiate work experience outside politics would have the same effect.
Furthermore, he acknowledges that political systems do not have inbuilt places where the system can reason on itself and its performance. He advocates the idea of a constitutional reflection group which should be independent from the executive branch and science-based.
A different approach to political excellence is endorsed by a couple of other contributors. Patrick Thaddeus Jackson , professor of International relations, holds that political excellence, understood as a normative concept, is not a matter for social sciences. Strongly influenced by Max Weber’s postulate of freedom from value judgements in social science, he calls for assertive self-limitation of social science so as to make room for politics. Against this background, we can read the contribution from Samuel Kobia with different eyes. He proposes a society and thus a political system based on norms and values. In his particular case, he strongly advocates peace and justice advising political actors to put these principles into practice. For Kobia, this is the basis for an excellent society. Weber’s postulate may as well be a good explanation for the position taken from Ruiz. For him, political excellence is “nothing new under the sun”. Political systems have to fulfil the real interests and needs of their citizens – full stop.
A completely different approach to political excellence is provided by Kim Erichsen , founder of Global Voter Foundation, with the concept of qualitative democracy. By introducing a meritocratic vote system, he wants to offer incentives to all citizens to boost their education and to volunteer in all sectors of society. But as Özdemir points out, the question remains who is in a position to judge which behaviour should be incentivised.
A completely different approach to political excellence is provided by Götz Werner et al. They propose to eliminate all taxes but one – a single consumption tax. Parts of the tax could finance a basic income everybody is entitled to. A side effect is that labour would be tax-free. Without being forced to secure a basic income which will instead be provided by the state and without being forced to fight for ever fewer jobs, people would have their fair share of rising productivity and could take up employment they cherish. According to Werner et al. this would transform our society into a “cultural society” – which can be described as excellent.
Political Excellence ex post
Following this pilot issue of JPoX we have decided to fulfil the ambition of being a platform for reflection and exchange of ideas by regularly publishing contributions and interviews on www.JPoX.eu. From time to time, we will have special issues focusing on particular aspects of the debate on political excellence.
With Political Excellence, the editors of JPoX proposed an expression which is not yet defined. This gets obvious when taking a closer look at the different interpretations of Political Excellence provided by the authors.
Some of them have understood Political Excellence as a normative phrase. However, this was not our intention. For us, Political Excellence is rather a process than a fixed state. In that sense, excellence is the continuous strive for the better. What does Political Excellence mean then? It is all about continuously observing and reflecting the political system in order to create new conditions. Hence, the concept is applicable to all political systems, not only to established democracies.
Political excellence is about improving political systems!
