Movements instead of parties
Parties are static, movements dynamic
Parties are static, movements dynamic
Transition from static to dynamic can currently be observed worldwide in intellectual developments. Not only philosophy, but almost all natural, cultural and life sectors are likely to be affected.
This probably fundamental change, which could well have the character of a new paradigm shift, seems so far to have found little entrance into the general consciousness. The website ARS-UNA.net has already mentioned this issue in many posts, but so far this has caused only minimal response for various, probably not yet completely clarified reasons. It was emphasized regularly that there is a close connection between private and public life, which de facto make these two essential parts of life into mirror images of each other.
In public space, which is first and foremost occupied by politics, the fact that the idea of parties in general contains primarily a static view of the world has so far hardly been made clear. There is a widespread observation of "party fatigue", especially among the increasingly dynamic youth. However, the connections have remained almost completely in the dark so far.
In a dynamically understood public space, i.e. if it is kept as free as possible of fundamentalist ideas, and in the associated politics, movements have clearly to be considered as the dynamic counterpart to a party. They art characterized by the fact of not being statically defined by statutes, declarations of principle and previous contracts, but can and must preserve room for unexpected processes and decisions. Such understood movements certainly will belong to the future instead of the former parties. The classic image of a party sometimes referred to as party landscape, which is often spoken of, is therefore pratically dead for not only one reason and must be replaced by something new, which will be movements just with virtually certainty. With striking frequency, the word future appears in different countries in the case of new start-ups of this kind.
As a general guiding principle, it can be said that lessons from the past have to be learned in the presence for the future and practical conclusions have to be drawn therefrom. That means dynamic and can not be solved by prior specifications of any kind, which makes the matter look dangerously vague at first. However, it will soon be clear that the apparent flexibility more than compensates for this apparent initial disadvantage. In addition, dynamics does not mean that there are no more static parts. But these are somehow supplanted to second place.
Such considerations correspond, in principle, to the remarks made on the role of rationality in the new modern alternative philosophy proposed by ARS-UNA.net. Rationality is absolutely not restricted, but important other areas are added, which were previously more or less taboo. They extend to three fields in particular: first, feelings and fitness, second, sex and power, and third, mobility and activities. The two parts in each case are not to be regarded as separate pairs, but each time span intermediate regions in which dynamic orientation can take place and is desired.
The main advantage of movements against parties is likely to be that significant disadvantages of previous electoral systems are improved. In general, it can be said so far that a large part of the electorate is uninformed about all the pending detail issues and, as a result, tends to make conservative decisions because they either do not know or sufficiently understand potential new developments of a progressive nature. So a rational decision is not at all to be expected. This certainly might be the most important reason for the tremendous increase in populism which is currently attractive for taking major advantage, especially in remote areas, e.g. more in the rural population than in the cities, or depending on the educational gap.
Another important point in the transition from static to dynamic conditions is the relationship to established religions of all kinds. These are by their nature almost always and everywhere fixed with only a few exceptions in a static way, so bound to basic writings and confessions and probably are often used more for the creation of a common identity than the alleged central belief. Therefore, it is practically inevitable that the transition from static to dynamic means a new secularization, which will, as in the past, almost certainly be met with fierce resistance from the centers of power of all established religions. Much careful education must be done here so that this transition to new ways of life does not degenerate again into grim religious wars. This explicitly affects all established religions almost equally. Said future, which may be represented by those new future movements, may therefore be more based on philosophy rather than religious. Philosophy does not require any confessions and should be capable of dynamic adaptations to the respective circumstances at any time and at any point.
Thus, at first in the private sphere, it might tend to move from a static attitude that tends to prayers to rather dynamically understood meditations, which are seen as the basis for exploring compromises, or, if the term is permitted, a modern middle way. In public space, that is to say in politics above all, a corresponding transition from static declamations to a grassroot-based dynamic opinion-finding should take place, in which a direct counterpart to personal meditation can be seen.
© Copyright und alle Rechte Hans J. Unsoeld, Berlin 2018
Updated April 12, 2018