Frank A. Meyer – column: aerial root

class=”sc-29f61514-0 kHgAwW”>

The right to vote for foreigners – even the right to vote – is an old concern of the left. In the canton of Zurich, residents without a Swiss passport should be given the opportunity to participate in political decision-making at the community level. The majority on the right rejected the request.

What is the right to vote? Citizens have the right to manage public affairs in their homeland. What is a house? This is a familiar living space where the citizen feels responsible for the fate of society.

For the left, this sounds too patriotic. She considers civil rights banal: where someone pays taxes, he should have a say in public affairs. Tax liability gives citizenship. Or also:

Who pays decides.

The Social Democrat Jacqueline Fehr, a member of the government of the canton of Zurich, is one of the supporters of the right to vote for foreigners, even the right to vote for foreigners. Is it possible, should it be allowed to call a politician a radical democrat?

Some time ago, Jacqueline Fehr spread her ideas of democracy reform through Facebook and the press: Depending on the age, the voting rights of citizens should be evaluated differently. Fehr’s very specific idea: in the future, people aged 18 to 40 will have two votes, people aged 40 to 65 will have one and a half votes, and all older people will have one vote.

Cancellation of equality!

The abolition of democracy!

“One Man, One Vote” – one citizen, one vote, regardless of race, religion, income, origin or age – is the foundation of any free and equal society.

How did the Social Democrat come yesterday to the idea of ​​abolishing the democratic equality of Swiss citizens? How did this social democrat come to advocate today for the introduction of democratic equality for foreigners?

There is no paradox: Jacqueline Fehr goes to her party.

The fetish of the Social Democrats – far beyond the borders of Switzerland – is a foreigner. The more alien, the more desirable: as an object of social care, as before, a capable, simple, working citizen – an employee.

Comrades touchingly meet new accusations: migrants, asylum seekers, refugees seeking protection are also powerless, because they do not share the rights that a citizen demands for himself.

Non-foreigners, called bio-Swiss or bio-Germans, figure in the social democratic perception as privileged, to whom pension policy is dedicated, but who do not need further cultural attention. Or should the Union of Right Forces also take care of feeling like a stranger in one’s own country?

The left eye wanders to the world, preferably to the “global south”, as the current promised kingdom is affectionately called. Daring globalism against popular solidarity.

Not home.

Yes, Heimat is even worthy of condemnation, since the word and content of this term has long been rhetorically instrumentalized and politically controlled by the extreme right.

But who left the concept of Motherland to the right everywhere in Europe? The concept of the fatherland? The concept of a nation? The term patriotism? Who has excluded from their own political lexicon these warmest words about belonging and security – about one’s own in one’s own country?

Who is in the process of cleaning up their own vocabulary to get rid of their own history? The great story of the struggle for civil rights and homeland rights of the working class against the abuse of workers as homeless apprentices?

work force? When it was? Today, the left is ruled by the academic community.

Meanwhile, in Europe, millions of citizens are gathering to protest against the voters, because they no longer know what to do with the aerial roots of this leftist elite. Where are they going?

For right-wing populist parties.

Source: Blick