Hubertus Buchstein

Hubertus Buchstein (2013)

Hubertus Buchstein (born September 6, 1959 in Eutin ) is a German political scientist and professor at the Institute for Political and Communication Science at the University of Greifswald .

Life

Hubertus Buchstein studied political science, German and philosophy at the University of Göttingen and at the Free University of Berlin from 1978 to 1984 . In January 1990 he received his PhD from the Free University of Berlin. phil. and in December 1997 he completed his habilitation in Berlin for political science.

As a two-time visiting professor, he held various guest lectureships at the New York School for Social Research .

After Buchstein had already been a deputy chair for political theory at the University of Greifswald in the winter semester 1998/99 , he has been professor for political theory and the history of ideas there since March 1999.

Since 1997 he has been co-editor of the journal Leviathan - Berliner Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft and since 2004 co-editor of the journal Redescriptions . Since March 2003 he has been a member of the board of the “Political Theories and History of Ideas” section of the DVPW . In 2001 he was commissioned as a reviewer for the German Bundestag's Enquete Commission “ Future of Citizenship Engagement ” to answer the question of whether the Internet can promote engagement. Buchstein is also a member of the German Society for Research into Political Thought (DGEPD).

His fields of research are the "Basics of the history of ideas of democracy and modern democratic theory", "Political philosophy and modern social theory", "History of political science in Germany", "The history of ideas and historical electoral law research", "Internet and politics" and "Right-wing extremism in the Federal Republic". He publishes Otto Kirchheimer's collected writings .

From 2009 to 2012 he was chairman of the German Association for Political Science .

Research content

Basics of the history of ideas and social theories

Even before 1945, people in Germany thought and philosophized politically. However, at that time there was no talk of political science. In many of his works, Buchstein tries to reconstruct the beginnings of the history of political ideas and the political philosophy of the Middle Ages, which followed Aristotle's tripartite division of economy, ethics and politics. In order to understand political philosophy before 1945, Buchstein made do with returning to the nature of the political, which is the starting point of all political thought.

From this point of view, totalitarianism must be seen as the new political phenomenon of the 20th century in order to be able to draw a clear line between democracy. The political has therefore distinguished itself by a peculiarity, the significance of which has neither been recognized nor recognized: a double division.

This is evident on the one hand in internal social conflicts between people and groups, and on the other hand in the division between state and society.

According to Buchstein, however, this double division does not depend on the current form of rule, but is to be understood as an unchangeable essence of the political, then and now. This inevitably means that every political system, every group, every person must inevitably react to them, i. H. is tempted to participate in political events.

This above-mentioned participation in political events is another point that Buchstein addresses in his literature (“Strong Democracy”).

Strong democracy is defined by a policy of citizen participation. It is literally the self-government of the citizens and not a vicarious government acting on behalf of the citizens. He agrees with Theodore Roosevelt's view that "the majority of the common people will make fewer mistakes day in and day out in governing themselves than that small group of men who try to rule the people."

Strong democracy does not look for a pre-political, independent historical reason or a changeable rational plan, rather it trusts participation in a community that is constantly evolving, solving problems and creating public ends where there was none before. They are shaped in the act of public participation and created through joint consultation like joint action, whereby it plays a special role that the content and direction of interest change as soon as they are exposed to participatory processes of this kind.

Taking a closer look and deepening, Buchstein describes in his books, works and writings that politics, expressed globally, becomes its own university, citizenship becomes its own educational institution and participation becomes its own teacher. Freedom is therefore what arises from this process and not what goes into it.

One can say that all of the topics Buchstein dealt with, historical and current, are mainly based on participation in political events.

One of the key statements in his publications can be abbreviated as follows: masses make noise, citizens consult, masses behave, citizens act, masses collide and overlap, citizens get involved, share something and make a contribution. The moment the masses begin to consult, act and contribute, they cease to be masses and become citizens. Only then do they “take part in political events”.

History of Political Science in Germany

Hubertus Buchstein counters the assertion that there is a continuity of Weimar approaches, the “brown” period 1933–1945 and political science in western post-war Germany with a chain of arguments that defends the previous historiography in which political science is the only social science without National Socialist Influence is highlighted.

Buchstein deals on the one hand with the question of whether the science of politics in the Weimar Republic is in continuity with the foreign studies of the Nazi era, and on the other hand, whether there was a continuous development from the above-mentioned foreign studies to political science of the post-war era. The examination of the teaching staff of the "Weimar" German University of Politics (DHfP) in Berlin and the DHfP taken over by the National Socialists (and later accepted into the German Faculty of Foreign Studies (DAWF)) shows no parallels, according to Buchstein. The National Socialists also restructured the institute from a technical point of view in such a way that there was almost no connection to science during the Weimar period. It is even claimed that the break in 1933 marked a temporary end to German political science.

Buchstein also looks at the development from foreign studies under the Nazi dictatorship to political science that emerged after the war from a personal perspective. Of all those who taught and trained at the DAWF between 1940 and 45, and of all the authors of two political science journals that were predominant during the Nazi era, only one was demonstrably later active in institutionalized political science. Buchstein therefore sees no continuity here either and emphasizes that this also applies to the political science discipline of international relations, which is presumably closest to National Socialist foreign studies .

These two breaks are crucial in Buchein's contemplation of history. His assertion is based on them that there is almost no connection between the Weimar science of politics and National Socialist foreign studies and just as little between the latter and post-war political science; he therefore rejects the acceptance of a “brownish” German post-war political science.

In terms of personnel, post-war political science drew from the occupation of the DHfP during the Weimar period, from emigration and from the resistance against the Nazi regime. Buchstein denies that the political scientists who had emigrated from the USA had a decisive, strong American influence on the development of political science in Germany. In doing so, he contradicts the general assessment that has long been valid, according to which the remigrants are assigned the major share in the development of the subject. Buchstein names some exemplary case studies (including the story of Ernst Fraenkel , which he worked intensively on ), which show that those who emigrated to the USA often continued to work on the basis of the Weimar tradition and only accepted the approaches of American political science if the basic scheme was used allowed.

In a joint research project with Cord Arendes , Buchstein is preparing a collective biographical analysis of political science at German universities. This shows, among other things, that the subject is very outdated in terms of personnel, as there has been no continuous development of the age structure since modernization and the generation change at the end of the 1960s and in the 1970s. According to Buchein's analysis, there will be a major upheaval in the personnel structure between 1999 and 2009, which presents more dangers than opportunities. The simultaneity of general economy-policy measures, the introduction of new courses and degrees, the weak establishment of political science in the state and administration, the consequent lack of stabilization in the economy and the non-existence of a nationwide school subject "political education" threatens the political science future at its core. Within the next two decades, Buchstein expects the subject to dissolve into various new disciplinary contexts, preceded by the non-occupation of vacant chairs and the closure and merging of institutes. He sees opportunities in this process for universities with young professorships.

Internet and politics

Hubertus Buchstein sees four forms of political communication on the Internet. Of these, he considers the information, administration and discussion functions to be fundamentally worthy of development and funding, although he problematizes their use in parts; However, he is very critical of the option of choosing via the Internet.

Buchstein positively describes the contribution that the Internet can make to opinion-forming, because it makes it easier for large groups in society that are less flexible for various reasons to participate in political events. The dissemination of information and opportunities for discussion on the Internet are inexpensive and open and primarily serve to strengthen structures for civic engagement. However, the Internet should not be seen as a substitute, but only as a supplement in this area. Civic associations thrive on face-to-face communication because they make it possible for a core to develop that feels responsible for a group - the Internet only offers this possibility to a limited extent. Buchstein regards signature campaigns via the Internet as problematic because the transparency and seriousness of the campaigns are affected by the flood of inquiries. The possibilities for discussion on the Internet also appear problematic for Buchstein: At this point he criticizes the lack of control, the use of freedom of speech in anonymous areas and the development of hierarchical structures.

The online elections have been controversial for some time. Proponents cite long-term cost reductions, speed, increase in voter turnout, the possibility of strengthening direct democratic elements and the consideration of a more authentic voter will than their arguments.

Opponents of the introduction of the new option, also known as e-voting, refer to the digital divide, the division of society into those who are “online” and those who, for whatever reasons, are not. This separation would allow e-voting from one's own PC at most as an addition to the traditional polling system.

Buchein's first argument against online elections is that it is incompatible with federal German constitutional law. Currently, the state has a duty to ensure the confidentiality of voting, which is why it provides voting booths. With e-voting from the home PC, secret voting would no longer be guaranteed, which would remove a fundamental and constitutionally mandatory feature of the election.

Buchstein also cites the problematic security situation of e-voting in his argumentation. In various phases of the election process, it must be ensured that manipulation cannot occur. Even if the technical procedure were secure, according to Buchstein, a mistrust of a sufficient number of voters - albeit based on false assumptions - in the procedure and thus in the election result would legitimize the elections, which in a democracy are the decisive expression of the people's will , undermined. Once lost, trust in democratic procedures cannot be restored, which is why the question of introducing online elections is crucial for the future of democracy.

Buchstein also sees the danger of “junk voting” in the online elections. The simple and convenient procedure, in contrast to the balloting process, may mean that more reckless and less reflective votes would be cast. Although voter turnout might increase, this increase would give a false picture of the real state of political culture.

Buchstein speaks of the privatization of voting and fears that voting in your own four walls instead of in a public place would reduce the voters' relationship to the community. A citizen's voting decision would then be decoupled from the idea of the common good and would rather be made on the basis of private, selfish interests. This threatens the "erosion of publicly oriented citizenship," warns Buchstein. At this point he also throws in the issue of voter participation: the increasing disinterest of online voters in the common good could reduce the willingness and interest to participate in elections.

Fonts

Political Science and Democracy. Concept of science and democracy theory by social democratic post-war political scientists in Berlin. Baden-Baden 1992. ISBN 3-7890-2606-9
with Rainer Schmalz-Bruns (Ed.): Benjamin Barber : Starke Demokratie. Hamburg 1994. ISBN 3-88022-804-3
with Jodi Dean (Ed.): Special Section on "Technology and Democracy" of the journal 'Constellations', October 1997.
(Ed.): Volume 1 of the collected writings of Ernst Fraenkel Law and Politics in the Weimar Republic of Baden-Baden 1999. ISBN 3-7890-5825-4
with Rainer Kühn: Volume 4 of the collected writings of Ernst Fraenkel Amerikastudien. Baden-Baden 2000. ISBN 3-7890-6161-1
Public and secret voting. A study on the history of electoral law and the history of ideas. Baden-Baden 2000. ISBN 3-7890-6673-7
with Gerhard Göhler (ed.): From socialism to pluralism. Contributions to the work and life of Ernst Fraenkel. Baden-Baden 2000. ISBN 3-7890-6869-1
with Harald Neymanns (ed.): Online elections. Opladen 2002. ISBN 3-8100-3380-4
with Katharina Beier, Jenny Bogitzky, Katharina Feike, Benjamin Fischer, Pierre Freyber, Mattias Strüwing, Tim Wiedemann: The NPD in the municipal parliaments of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. Greifswald 2006.
with Tine Stein and Claus Offe : Sovereignty, Law, Morality: The Basics of Political Community , Frankfurt am Main, New York 2007.
Democracy and lottery. The lot as a political decision-making instrument from antiquity to the EU. Frankfurt am Main 2009. ISBN 978-3-593-38729-1
Democracy Theory in Controversy. Baden-Baden 2009. ISBN 978-3-8329-4896-2
Democracy politics: theoretical biographical studies on German post-war political scientists. Baden-Baden 2011. ISBN 978-3-8329-5580-9
(Ed.): The Promises of Democracy. Baden-Baden: Nomos 2013. ISBN 978-3-8487-0230-5 .
The lot of the children. Child suffrage , in: Katapult, April 23, 2015.
as editor with Hedwig Richter : Culture and Practice of Elections. A history of modern democracy . Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2017, ISBN 3-658-16097-7 .

Web links

personal data
SURNAME	Buchstein, Hubertus
BRIEF DESCRIPTION	German political scientist
DATE OF BIRTH	September 6, 1959
PLACE OF BIRTH	Eutin