Difference between revisions of "Fraktionszwang (Germany, Switzerland, Austria)"

Fraktionszwang (Germany, Switzerland, Austria) (view source)

Revision as of 15:31, 27 November 2020

1 byte added , 15:31, 27 November 2020

no edit summary

Admin

Supervisor, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

5,669

edits

Revision as of 12:19, 22 November 2020 (view source) Editor2018 (talk \| contribs) ← Older edit		Revision as of 15:31, 27 November 2020 (view source) Admin (talk \| contribs) Newer edit →
Line 54:		Line 54:
	Coercion is an inherent pragmatic feature of representative democracies that ensures clear majorities for a functioning decision-making process (Galka and Schuett-Wetschky 2007, Kasten 1985) but the voters view it critically if it is frequently employed. According to a Statista survey (2011), 50 percent of the Germans demand a more frequent suppression of ''Fraktionszwang'', and 31 percent demand its complete suppression. The voters expect the MPs to act on their behalf, but ''Fraktionszwang'' prevents them to follow their electoral promises and advertised attitudes. This can challenge the very idea of representative democracy. The media label the MPs who frequently vote in line with the ''Fraktion'' as ''Abnicker'' (ʻyes menʼ) and frequently glorify deviating MPs as democratic rebels. However, ''Fraktions'' with too diversified opinions are presented in the press as chaotic, paralysed and inefficient and the deviating MPs are called the ''Nestbeschmutzer'' (ʻtraitorsʼ) (Arnett et al. 2016, Borst and Hildebrandt 2014, Fiedler 2017).		Coercion is an inherent pragmatic feature of representative democracies that ensures clear majorities for a functioning decision-making process (Galka and Schuett-Wetschky 2007, Kasten 1985) but the voters view it critically if it is frequently employed. According to a Statista survey (2011), 50 percent of the Germans demand a more frequent suppression of ''Fraktionszwang'', and 31 percent demand its complete suppression. The voters expect the MPs to act on their behalf, but ''Fraktionszwang'' prevents them to follow their electoral promises and advertised attitudes. This can challenge the very idea of representative democracy. The media label the MPs who frequently vote in line with the ''Fraktion'' as ''Abnicker'' (ʻyes menʼ) and frequently glorify deviating MPs as democratic rebels. However, ''Fraktions'' with too diversified opinions are presented in the press as chaotic, paralysed and inefficient and the deviating MPs are called the ''Nestbeschmutzer'' (ʻtraitorsʼ) (Arnett et al. 2016, Borst and Hildebrandt 2014, Fiedler 2017).

	''Fraktionszwang'' is legal in many countries. The United States, the United Kingdom and many of its former colonies have institutionalised the practice of party discipline in the form of party whips, who officially secure majority votes by formal and informal cohesive methods (see [[~~dirtbook~~]] in the UK, also see Bowler et al. 1999). ''Dǎngjì'' (黨紀) is the legally constituted and expected party discipline in China (Cai 2008). Depending on the political system and culture, the extent of disciplining varies. Party discipline is typical for representative democracies with direct mandates and first-past-the-post electoral systems (Bowler, Farrell and Katz 1999).		''Fraktionszwang'' is legal in many countries. The United States, the United Kingdom and many of its former colonies have institutionalised the practice of party discipline in the form of party whips, who officially secure majority votes by formal and informal cohesive methods (see [[dirt book]] in the UK, also see Bowler et al. 1999). ''Dǎngjì'' (黨紀) is the legally constituted and expected party discipline in China (Cai 2008). Depending on the political system and culture, the extent of disciplining varies. Party discipline is typical for representative democracies with direct mandates and first-past-the-post electoral systems (Bowler, Farrell and Katz 1999).