Yes, it was a bad day. It's a good opportunity to examine why this has happened and why the message of the far right resonates with the younger generation.
Another possible reason could be that young people aren't happy with the current state of affairs and they want change. However, they might overlook that some aspects of the existing system are good, and change doesn't guarantee that these positive aspects will remain. This is similar to what happened 45 years ago with the revolution in Iran. People were fed up with the Shah and wanted change. The mullahs offered change, but people failed to recognize that what the Shah provided would not be guaranteed by the mullahs. People often think, "I already have this, I want more on top of it." They don't realize that what they already have is not guaranteed.
We need to find the antidote to the temptation of "Kirchturmpolitik"!
(For non German speakers: The only things that matter are the ones I can see from the top window of my church tower. And I can fix these best myself)
Here the federalisation of rhe EU and the subsidiarity principle come into play. Because a lot of things rhat matter to people can be done better at the l
ocal or regional level.
But finding the right balance between centralisation and decentralisation is a process never to be completed. These terms have to be continuously renegotiated.
I agree with you: federalism is the solution. But that also means that what is best placed at the highest level should be placed there, and politics should be able to act at that level (for example, with majority decisions instead of the unanimity principle). Yesterday's election showed that people want that less and less.
Yes, it was a bad day. It's a good opportunity to examine why this has happened and why the message of the far right resonates with the younger generation.
Could it be that younger people are more receptive to simple answers?
Yes, it could be one of the reasons.
Another possible reason could be that young people aren't happy with the current state of affairs and they want change. However, they might overlook that some aspects of the existing system are good, and change doesn't guarantee that these positive aspects will remain. This is similar to what happened 45 years ago with the revolution in Iran. People were fed up with the Shah and wanted change. The mullahs offered change, but people failed to recognize that what the Shah provided would not be guaranteed by the mullahs. People often think, "I already have this, I want more on top of it." They don't realize that what they already have is not guaranteed.
This makes sense to me. Thanks.
We need to find the antidote to the temptation of "Kirchturmpolitik"!
(For non German speakers: The only things that matter are the ones I can see from the top window of my church tower. And I can fix these best myself)
Here the federalisation of rhe EU and the subsidiarity principle come into play. Because a lot of things rhat matter to people can be done better at the l
ocal or regional level.
But finding the right balance between centralisation and decentralisation is a process never to be completed. These terms have to be continuously renegotiated.
I agree with you: federalism is the solution. But that also means that what is best placed at the highest level should be placed there, and politics should be able to act at that level (for example, with majority decisions instead of the unanimity principle). Yesterday's election showed that people want that less and less.
The "subsidiarity principle" is such a complicated word for such a simple thing: Place decision power as low as possible and as high as necessary.
I believe the word itself scares people off.
And the principle falls prey to the selfoverestimation of the actors own capabilities.