Helmut Melzer
"A compromise is perfect when everyone is dissatisfied," said politician and Nobel Peace Prize winner Aristide Briand. As a result, domestic policy is constantly reaching a new level. Please do not misunderstand: Of course, compromises are needed. But to stick to the compromise as a blanket principle, I think is conceivably wrong.
First, it is important to distinguish where a middle path is sought: on the way or at the goal. An example: It is understandable and legitimate that in terms of energy efficiency and ecology it is discussed which means, measures and time horizons result in a sensible strategy against advancing climate change. To shake the goals - such as the fastest possible exit from fossil fuels - seems simply absurd in 2016.
Second, everything has its limits. One of them is called reason. Because if it turns out that not only detail issues but also necessary goals are watered down by opportunistic whisperers, that is, lobbyists, is the end with fun - and the willingness to compromise.
A comparison: Politically incorrect postings of lost fellow citizens in the social networks are now classified as incitement, and rightly punished. But if entire sectors of industry are acting out of pure self-interest against not only economic, but even global, existential interests such as climate protection, should that be allowed? Can one still speak of reasonable compromises?
In a time that is increasingly being driven by new ideas and innovations, it is already strange that state-sponsored sectors - especially politics and business - bear the coat of paint of a 70er-Plattenbau. It could also be different: A compromise does not have to be a solution with which all those involved are just satisfied, it can also be a completely new idea, from which I hope all parties are enthusiastic. Today more than ever constructiveness and imagination are in demand - even if some would like to stay in the past.
Photo / Video: Option.
