[Semaphor]

Our data retention laws get overturned all the time. Usually already by our constitutional courts. Sadly our politicians don’t care much and don’t get punished, so they just try it again and again and again and usually it’s in effect for a while before the courts give judgement.

I really can’t explain where Politikverdrossenheit (political apathy) comes from.

edit: The last sentence is sarcasm

[geewee]

Seems like we've had basically the exact same case in Denmark. A law gets overturned by the ECJ and they just make another law that's slightly different. Then they say there's a certain "process risk" regarding the law which basically means it might not be compatible with EU law at all. Pisses me off.

[Etheryte]

Out of curiosity, doesn't Germany have the equivalent of a constitutional watchdog? For example in Estonia, the president fills this role (as do some other constitutions, but the president is a good example in this context). The president is otherwise a purely ceremonial figurehead in Estonia, but one functional role they fill is that before any new bill becomes law, they have to sign off on it and declare it's constitutional. If they find it not to be, they can send it back to the parliament (or to the highest national court, depending on the circumstances).

[joker99]

We do, pretty much the same as your situation. However, it doesn't happen very often that the Bundespräsident actually does this. Their role is almost purely ceremonial and I could count the cases on one hand where they used this power. Some legal professionals argue, that this check is basically a ceremonial one as well.

[tomrod]

If one thing I've learned the past decade, it is that "ceremonial" functions can be disrupted by people who don't respect the precedent.

[edgyquant]

Can you give an example where this has been the case? That a ceremonial monarch or executive is now an active participant in government?

[tomrod]

One striking example is the "ceremonial" activity that, in the US, the Vice President counts the electors votes to certify the election for the next President. This was interrupted in 2021 by ne'er-do-wells who thought they would overthrow a legitimate election, having been fed a lot of baloney from a lot of sources.

In both the example above and this example, what was taken as "ceremonial" (especially since the advent of much, much better forms of communication than what was available the 1790s) was still the the lawful course. Our systems of government are held together by the belief in and affinity to perform duty according to precedent.

[jackvalentine]

The former Prime Minister of Australia had the Governor General (a largely ceremonial role) secretly swear him in to multiple ministries without the knowledge of the incumbent minister, the parliament or the public. The Governor General didn’t publicise these appointments. The PM then used his new ministerial powers a couple of times.

The convention expected was the GG would announce these appointments, he didn’t and put out a statement when it was found out that literally said “oh yeah not my job sorry you thought it was”

https://www.gg.gov.au/about-governor-general/media/statement...

[prottog]

Politics in the Lucky Country are really mind-boggling sometimes.

[nielsole]

https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/hintergrund-bundespraesi...

A list of seven rejected laws. I think there was one more in the last decade.

[PeterisP]

An oversight mechanism doesn't have to be used often in order to be effective - even if it's not used, the fact that it is there acts as a check and balance because then others don't try to submit outrageous things which will be rejected.

[hutzlibu]

Next to the Bundespräsident who plays the same role as yours, we even have a whole court dedicated to it, the Bundesverfassungsgericht. And occasionally they do indeed good work.

[ajsnigrutin]

> I really can’t explain where Politikverdrossenheit (political apathy) comes from.

I understand... it's simple... someone does something bad, nothing happens to them... bad thing again... nothing happens... people protest... nothing happens... bad thing again.. nothing happens...

If this was some other timeline, and people brought guillotines out every couple of years and "dealt with" the "bad" politicians in "the french way", politicians themselves would be calling for jail sentances, because they'd atleast be alive in there.

Otherwise, i live in a different country, and the political situation is the same.

[edgyquant]

The reason we don’t guillotine people is because Robespierre guillotined everyone and now we know that murdering people politically is an addictive substance.

Also let’s be clear, the reign of terror was an absolute shit show in every since of the word as was killing the king. 30 years of war just to have another monarchy to overthrow isn’t exactly a great move.

[petre]

This only happens in France but without guillotines: strikes + yellow gillet protests. The Germans are too well behaved to do anything or the political process is much too civilised to employ any form of civil disobedience.

[Tarsul]

I think it also has something to do with that our (German) media is not as radicalised. And Germans don't like facebook, so there's probably less options/danger also to radicalise through social media. And usually the poor are not as poor as in other countries. But we will see what happens this winter.

[tut-urut-utut]

Don't worry. Today's newspapers reports that our fine ministerin is already looking to find and exploit loopholes in the judgement and will try to implement as much as possible [1].

It's a shame. We tend to criticize EU for a million valid reasons, but once in a while when they do something right, our government first reflex is to just ignore it.

[1] (German) https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2022-09/vorratsdaten...

[nani8ot]

The coalition she's part of already said that they are against indiscriminate data retention, so I'd say the chances of her getting her will are slim.

Though if the next cabinet in a few years includes the CDU (christian democrats), they'll try again.

[retcore]

From 51:25 in this BBC documentary [0] you're introduced to Horst Herold [1] the President of the BKA (Federal police) who instigated the creation of the Suchsystem Inpol sowie Analysen [2] to catch the Baader Meinhoff gang by trawling citizens data. Until the violence of the Baader Meinhoff gang, there was sufficient popular sentiment including in politics, against any Federal use of power as prohibited by the constitution. This was effectively reversed with the assassination of Alfred Herrhausen [3] using a enfilade of shaped charges to slice through his armoured limousine. Herold created the first European data dragnet to identify anyone who profiled similarly to his quarry. The gang were apprehended only using indirect evidence ,[edit: of their whereabouts]. Violence and the ensuing police reactions disheartened and suppressed opposition to Federal government enforcement.

[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p093wy1r/cant-get-you-... ,

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Herold ,

[2] https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/INPOL ,

[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Herrhausen

[croes]

Don't forget the part Peter Urbach played as agent provocateur in the Red Army Faction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Urbach

Or later the Celle Hole

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celle_Hole

[salawat]

It comes from fundamental constraints on signal propagation, socially reinforced bias towards abstaining or following anyone who sounds like they have expertise, confict aversion, the huge overhead involved with actually becoming known enough by people to get past change aversion, and a general willingness to accept that the emperor is far away even though in today's world they aren't.

We're literally living in a time where "global" namespace changes are made willy nilly by people who don't even spend the time reading everything they may have an effect on by doing them, which is just accepted as being "impossible".

Further, the only people with the time/resources to engage in politics in a tangible way are pgobably the most disconnected people from the way of life for the polises they are shaping.

Human beings are ruthless energy optimizers (biological constraint), and the cognitive load of actually productive political engagement is absurdly high. Thus, people with literally anything else to do avoid it, or find it pointless, leaving only those so bereft of anything else to do to be the most impactful on that arena. Which in turn creates more for the disengaged to have to do to keep them from getting in the way...

It's a vicious cycle.

[themitigating]

Political apathy comes from the political party that would most benefit from low turnout.

If you are disappointed with politics that is a reason to vote. If you don't care, that's a valid reason not to vote

[whimsicalism]

Is there not a limit case?

Would you tell people in China, "if you are disappointed with politics, vote in your People's Congress elections?"

[PeterisP]

Why not?

If you have a one-party system, then all it means that the actual policy choices are made not by parties, but rather by factions or individuals within the one party, so if you want to change things, then the levers of change are obtained not by being a voter (or candidate) and having your party gain positions in the country but by being a party member (or official) and having your faction supporters gain positions in the party.

[kevin_thibedeau]

CCP members theoretically have more agency than just voting. Every one of them can advance issues at the peoples congress.

[themitigating]

Assuming there's a choice, I'm not familiar with Chinese elections, then yes.

Why not vote? What is the advantage of that?

[djbebs]

Voting provides legitimacy to the winner of the election and to the election process itself.

If you disagree with both of those things, voting has no positive and results only in negatives.

[trinsic2]

Its been my understanding that political parties have interests that are completely separate from the will of the people, even though campaigns say otherwise, and no amount of change is going to fix that problem.

Also any changes that come from those institutions follow the real progress that gets made by common people.

"A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote." - Henry David Thoreau

[themitigating]

If it has no positives what are the negatives?

[function_seven]

Providing legitimacy to parties or institutions that you reject.

Simpsons did it: "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos"

[RegnisGnaw]

Of course there is a choice. You get "Person A" from the CCP or "Person B" from the CCP.

I mean even in the DPRK, you can vote for whoever you want. Its what happens afterwards..

[themitigating]

So you are claiming in the DPRK voting is rigged? Do you have proof of this?

[bonzini]

In DPRK there is only one choice on the ballot that you can optionally cross out to disapprove. That doesn't happen often or at all; I suppose they'd know who does it based on the time it takes to vote.

[whimsicalism]

People might view it as giving legitimacy to a process.

[themitigating]

The process of voting is legitimate.

Does giving legitimacy to voting accomplish anytime? What about protesting the system by not voting, does that do anything?

[whimsicalism]

> The process of voting is legitimate.

What do you mean by this? If I (a dictator) were to hold an election but require 90% approval to unseat me, that would be a "legitimate" process because it includes voting?

Do you not understand what I am saying?

> What about protesting the system by not voting, does that do anything?

Arguably yes. Afghanistan's state legitimacy collapsed as basically fewer than 10% of people voted in any of it's elections and then the government fell.

[VLM]

The way they've done it for decades where I live, is party A and party B serve the same master on all substantial issues, so pick a "hot button" social issue that neither side will ever do anything about and have A and B take opposing views. Then do some gatekeeping where both parties and the media agree to push hard propaganda that voting 3rd party is "throwing your vote away".

The people in charge are the ones who pick the two almost identical candidates. There will be no change in economic or foreign policy regardless of winner.

(Edited, the other way is to push hard core identity politics where demographic groups are owned by certain parties, so voting has all the legitimacy of a mere census. The only way to influence policy would be having (or not having) children)

[djbebs]

Totally disagree.

[MichaelCollins]

> Political apathy comes from the political party that would most benefit from low turnout.

This is very reductive, you've lost sight of the trees and only see the forest. Politically apathetic people have a wide array of personal reasons for being the way they are. You don't know what's going on in all of their lives, you can't reduce all of their life experiences and feelings into one big conspiracy.

[Semaphor]

Been preaching that for years, but I can certainly see where "it doesn’t matter anyway" comes from.

[em-bee]

but it doesn't matter. all parties pander to a majority to get votes. minority interests are ignored everywhere, and consequently none of the available parties have any redeeming qualities that make them a better choice than the others.

the whole system is broken. the parties waste most of their energy to fight each other instead of cooperating to actually solve problems. i want to throw out the whole lot and replace it with a system that is actually representative of the communities. is there any party anywhere that can achieve that?

[earth-adventure]

At this point in time, on this planet - not as far as I know. It's against human nature. It's why I love Star Trek TNG, as cheeky as it can be at times, it's always reasoning about human behavior and defining its shortcomings. And trying to overcome those.

Maybe the Swiss with their voting on all issues system, are a step in the right direction.

[hok]

The fact that a court overturns a law is proof that our democracy actually works.

No need to be 'verdrossen'.

It would be worse if the courts just approves all laws the government conceives.

[Semaphor]

The issue is, that the process to overturn a law takes years, but introducing the same law (with a slightly different paint) again takes months.

Or for some reductio ad absurdum: Slavery is legal for 10 months per year, but every October the Slavery Legalization law gets struck down by the courts, proof that our democracy works.

[kccqzy]

Why does it take so long though? In the United States courts often issue a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order to stop the enforcement of law. This way the courts can take their time in deciding a case while the new law does not get enforced.

[taejo]

In this case (IIRC) two service providers went to court and the law was put out of force for them, at which point the federal agency in charge of enforcing it decided not to do so until the matter was resolved by the highest court. So in some sense it did work.

[croes]

Some bad laws aren't overturned

[pgorczak]

The process makes sense from a separation of powers perspective. When there’s an especially fine line between what legislative wants and (constitutional) judicative allows, there has to be some rejections.

This is probably one of the cases where lawmakers feel some spite about constitutional courts exerting too much influence over their work. It would be easier if they’d just talk about it before going through the whole process but I guess creating frustration is part of the point here.

[goodrubyist]

That's not how it works at least in the US, but I don't know about Germany. SCOTUS claims that the judicial system is not for reviewing all the acts passed for constitutionality, but (as per Article III) only addressing specific harms brought up by individuals (the requirement for standing). This is from a 1992 precedent:

1. The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent 2. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court 3. It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury

Talking in advance about what law is constitutional would be perverse under such system (I love the standing doctrine, btw and so does the Chief Justice).

[pgorczak]

AFAICT it really is different in Germany. The constitutional court can also be called by other courts, by the government or by parliament to check already passed laws.

[pelasaco]

Me as german citizen would be interested to know how much such processes costs from our taxes money. From bringing such law again to debate, convicting the parlament to vote it, then approving it, then the whole courts costs... I'm not sure why at least once a year we see that there.. regardless of who is in the government.. Is it Lobby driven?

[zoobab]

Same here in Belgium: https://edri.org/our-work/new-belgian-data-retention-law-a-e...

After DataRet was stroke down by the Constitutional Court, our Justice Minister Vincent Van Quickenborne pushed for a new data retention that only targets 100% of the surface of the country:

https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/targeted-data-retention-onl...

[ekianjo]

Its funny that it happens in Germany of all places. Its not like they had a case of excessive use of data by the state before (stasi) against their own citizens

Either memories are short or there is political fantasy of being control freaks going on

[amelius]

> I really can’t explain where Politikverdrossenheit (political apathy) comes from.

It comes from voter indifference.

[philipov]

This is a tautology and doesn't answer the question.