Social change in the Landtag

Whether a real change is actually taking place in the Saxon state parliament—that’s something we’d like to discuss with one or two members of the legislature after our visit. We—the SmM17/18S class of the Master's degree programme in management of social change at the Zittau/Görlitz University of Applied Sciences—were able to step into the arena of Saxon politics thanks to Green Party representative Franziska Schubert.

But before we spent an hour listening to and observing the proceedings in their plenary session, Franziska took nearly two hours to answer our questions. Franziska Schubert is originally from Ebersbach-Neugersdorf and is good at keeping up to date on issues affecting Upper Lusatia.

Among other topics, we discussed the unconditional basic income, communication during plenary sessions, and the possible outcome of the 2019 state legislative elections. But first things first:

It has often been said that Upper Lusatia has incredible potential to grow, to flourish, and to harness the energy of the people living here to achieve great things. Politicians, University lecturers, and guest speakers such as Gerald Hüther recognize these diverse opportunities. According to Franziska Schubert, a model of the unconditional basic income is entirely realistic for Upper Lusatia—or at least for parts of it. As the official responsible for financial and budgetary policy, she is good at assessing the feasibility of such ideas.

This—along with many other points Franziska raised—gives us courage. Although our college degrees allow us to make an impact in many fields, the overall conditions are not always ideal. The wealth of ideas and openness to new approaches on the part of politicians like Franziska Schubert, however, offers hope for new prospects for staying in the region.

Finally, the members of parliament in the plenary chamber gave us a small taste of how politics works at the highest level: “Madam President, ladies and gentlemen,” was the opening line—every single time—when someone new stepped up to the microphone.

Sometimes it actually seems as though proposals, laws, drafts, and other matters are being seriously discussed in the plenary session. Yet it was made clear to us that transparency leaves much to be desired: What is made public to the audience was decided in advance; the positions are clear. There are closed-door committees on all sorts of topics. On the one hand, this sounds interesting. After all, it’s certainly exciting to see what’s agreed upon between the parties and how the diplomatic preliminary talks—for example, on topics like “injustices committed by the GDR and the settlement of assets”—unfold. On the other hand, it’s clear: We’re not allowed in there. Decisions are made on so many issues without any opportunity for the public to be involved or have a say.

However, we—the citizens—must not allow this right to have a say to be completely taken away from us. After all, this right does not merely mean that politicians are obligated to fulfill it. We can exercise it and have a say. In addition to the opportunity to vote, we can get involved ourselves in the city council, the county council, or even the state legislature through methods that aren’t all that complicated. After all, young people, in particular, are needed there. And if we don’t see them in the relevant positions, we should fill those roles ourselves.

Maria Schwalbe-Anker, student in the degree programme for management of social change