There is an urgent and dire need for a fundamental rethinking, on the part of the state apparatus, of the function it is meant to fulfil. For years now, politicians responsible for the domestic affairs of the country have been covering up all that is clearly going wrong in society and in the organs responsible for its administration by means of a flood of laws, ad hoc decrees, and – what is much worse – by means of placing restrictions on basic human rights and the rights of the citizen.
Politicians, civil servants and the „administrative personnel“ of our society in general must finally come to understand that, in dealing with the citizens of this society, they are indeed dealing with citizens, and no longer with the „loyal and obedient subjects“ of some pre-modern feudal state.
We citizens pay for the administrative work performed by these administrators; politicians and civil servants are our employees.
Such is the understanding of the nature of the state propounded by the PDSJ.
If something is going wrong in the state system, the measures taken against this must consist in rectification of the structures within which state and society operate, and not in lies, cover-ups and the oppression which must necessarily result from these latter.
Civil Service and Local Authorities
The whole jungle of civil service and local authority departments, with its complex tangle of laws and regulations, stands in urgent need of being cleared and set in manageable order – and this on every level, from borough and county right up to national.
The government and civil service apparatus must be slimmed down and made more efficient. Cutting of costs can be combined with an actual improvement in service levels by means of a more rational management of purchasing procedures, better integration of IT and Internet facilities, and more careful consideration of how work processes should actually best be organized.
In the interior decoration of civil service and governmental premises, there is no place for showiness or the „grand style“. We are not advocating a Spartan design for all such premises, but the equipping of such offices with designer lamps, for example, is certainly going too far in the other direction.
Given that increased security will tend, in the majority of cases, to go hand in hand with restriction of individual liberties, security issues need to be approached not only with a particularly high degree of sensitivity but also with an awareness of the fact that involved here are certain problems that belong indeed to the spheres of philosophical and ethical consideration.
How, though, is one to identify here the appropriate „middle path“ ? One has at least the rudiments of a solution to this problem where one begins to consider the concept „security“ as a concept functionally equivalent to „freedom from fear“.
Because „freedom from fear“ is only possible where the conditions for ensuring such freedom have been carefully thought through before implementation.
To try to prevent crime by making laws harsher and surveillance of the citizenry more intensive is to follow the wrong path entirely here. If we Germans have learnt anything from our experiences with Hitler’s SS and the „Stasi“ security forces of the former GDR, it is this.
Were it possible to greatly improve the success rate as regards „crimes solved“ while actually reducing the level of surveillance, this would certainly be the better path to follow.
One might go a long way toward attaining such an ideal goal by establishing, on as broad a basis as possible, a base of securely coded DNA profiles. Were this to be done, however, it would have to be strictly ensured that, if a specific DNA sample sufficed to lead those examining it to a specific profile, this profile would not be such as to lead said examining parties back to the associated genome.
From the point of view of a politics concerned with identifying the general determining and promoting conditions required for a just society, the topics: terrorism, criminality exercised in the areas of the economy and public provision, vandalism, and so on need to be dealt with under another heading.
Immigration and Right to Asylum
The introduction of a basic income which would be each citizen’s by right would appear, when matters are considered merely from a superficial viewpoint, to go to aggravate the problems surrounding immigration and asylum-seeking.
The first point that needs to be made here, however, is that the whole necessity that asylum be, in certain cases, accorded is a theme that would really, in principle, need to be discussed within the context of a discussion of foreign, rather than domestic policy. This inasmuch as, if economic and political circumstances within the countries from which asylum-seekers flee were in any sort of proper order, there would be no need for anyone to seek asylum at all.
Since, however, it would be totally unrealistic to imagine that it would be possible to correct such dysfunctional circumstances within any short space of time, we must recognize that we will continue, for the foreseeable future, to find ourselves confronted with the problem of asylum.
We hold to the hitherto prevailing view to the extent that we too consider that asylum ought not to be allowed to turn gradually and imperceptibly into a residency without fixed term. The method hitherto adopted, however, of dissuading asylum-seekers from allowing their stay in the asylum-granting country to become a de facto permanent one – namely, that of making their time in said country as uncomfortable and unpleasant as possible – is certainly the wrong one.
Rather, we should be using the time spent by the asylum-seekers in the host country to give these asylum-seekers further training and education. This inasmuch as such training and education is – considered in the long term, at least – the most effective, and cost-effective, form of development aid.
Good reason for the immigration into Germany of citizens of states lying outside the EU – be it in the form of a „green card“ system or in some other form - neither exists at present nor will it exist after the introduction of a system of basic citizen’s income.
If voices in industry are presently demanding the introduction of such a „green card“ system, these demands originate solely in the hope of thereby acquiring the use of cheap, easily manipulable, but nonetheless appropriately academically qualified „tools of production“.
Moreover, it is also counter-productive on the level of a more global politics to set about luring and drawing away from developing countries like India or Pakistan the very citizens of these countries who are most likely to contribute to their nations’ progress on the path to prosperity and democracy.
Immigration to Germany from other EU states might be limited and controlled by the fact of such immigrants’ becoming eligible for the receipt of the basic citizen’s income only after having been resident in the country for a lengthier period of time – except, of course, in the case of their country of origin’s also paying out such a citizen’s income.
Moreover, it should also be noted that the idea of the introduction of such a basic citizen’s income represents the only concept hitherto known which is capable of securing, also in the longer term, social peace and harmony.