We are democracy! ?
The AfD presents in the Bundestag an application for complete border protection and rejection of the present uncontrolled influx of migrants.
Under a huge verbal “Boooh”, Mr Gauland from the AfD said: “Yes, people can be illegal.”
We are democracy! ?
Democracy is not the rule of the majority, but a complicated mechanism that allows one to think in alternative and different ways. Whether the system of democracy has been established, cannot be judged solely on institutions, elections and procedures, but by whether the public can stand the fact that there can be more than one political truth.
The present situation in Europe seems far from that. We are confronted with a wall of “Left is good, and right is bad”, “Right is Nazism and Left liberation” and “The AfD is non democratic, and the EU is democratic”. But let’s pause here. Doesn’t this sound like populism? Aren’t the facts different from the slogans? Since when was the EU lead elected for and the AfD installed?
So let’s go back to the voice of a representative of the nation. The AfD is concerned with ensuring "complete and effective protection of the German border". This includes the so-called green border, i.e. the border between the official crossing points. For this purpose, "comprehensive border controls" should be established, with the result of "a fundamental rejection of unauthorized border crossing".
Isn’t this just a healthy, no, even simply normal approach of protecting a sovereign state? What other country would allow to be overrun by external forces, and be it simply the force of the masses claiming to be refugees, without reason in most cases, papers or true identity.
Finally, the AfD calls on the Federal Government "to disclose on what legal basis it has allowed and continues to allow the practice of renouncing the possibilities of rejection - resulting in mass illegal immigration".
A very democratic request as it seems. But it’s answered with a primitive “Boooh”.
The AfD argues that all those seeking protection entering through safe third countries are illegally migrating, something that Geert Wilders from the Dutch PVV has been saying since years already. One of their points of reference: Section 18 of the Asylum Act. According to this, the foreigner is to be “refused entry if he is arriving from a safe third country". This is the case with all countries neighbouring Germany, argues the AfD. The implementation of the asylum procedure is normally governed by the country of first entry of a migrant under the Dublin III Regulation. The Geneva Refugee Convention also does not oblige Germany to accept immigrants from safe states.
The other parties have accused the AFD not understanding the complexity of the situation and therefor acting inhumane. "I can eloquently explain to you how naive and stupid it is to believe that all the problems you have listed could be solved with one measure," said CDU interior expert Armin Schuster. Remarkably, Schuster often appeared as a critic of refugee policy by Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU). Interesting here are the arguments given. Inhumane? Isn’t it more inhumane to leave the own citizens without protection? One measure? Isn’t it better to start with one measure, than to just let things happen and turn over a free, secular and democratic society? Complex? Isn’t it questionable labelling a pressing situation complex, and then just leaving it open, rather than offer solutions that could be applied immediately?
The FDP (Liberal Democrats) parliamentarian Benjamin Strasser said that the AfD application calls for a breach of the law and a violation of the Schengen Borders Code. Another nonsense argument. For who was the Schengen regulation established? For people from all over the world, or for the European people to move freely within Europe, from country to country? The latter of course.
Who are the real populists in parliament? Whilst the AfD is presenting solutions and is pointing out what is going wrong in the country, members of several parties accuse the AfD of promoting the division of society with an aggressive language. "The brutalization of language is the precursor to violence, to which the AfD has contributed," said the CDU politician Marian Wendt in the Bundestag. The SPD politician Sonja Steffen accused the AFD, to be responsible for a harsher dealing with parties and politicians. The AfD plants hate. The FDP politician Konstantin Kuhle said that the AfD was in fact "the agent of political brutality." The Green Sven-Christian Kindler said that the AfD was "in the mire of violence."
In short; all other parties seem to have no interest in the protection of Germany, and all accusations of violence towards the AfD, are basically coming from their sides, together, united.
We are democracy? !
If you look at countries like Turkey or China, but also at some post-communist countries, that is exactly what is missing: deviation tolerance. Instead, it fuels the contempt for overly complicated democracy, which is incapable of making clear decisions. But precisely this unambiguity, not to say lack of alternatives, has led to the de-legitimization of current politics in Germany.
Hence, we all agree what is good, not right, because right is bad and left is good. We are democracy? The former GDR called itself a democratic state, the former East German state where Angela Merkel is from and where all other parties in parliament were more like a decoration showcase. The SED (Socialist unity party Germany) used to be known for the slogan: “The party is always right”
Think! We are democracy! ?
By Thomas Fleckner
Comments powered by CComment