Parliament and Public
Parliament and Public from the Late Eighteenth Century to the Present
Modern parliaments need the public eye. What sounds obvious and almost trivial obscures a relationship fraught with tension, for the assessment of this relationship has over time been subject to profound changes. During the nineteenth century, for instance, parliament and public were regarded as »symbiotic twins«, ensuring social and constitutional progress. Such an optimistic view is nowadays uncommon. Rather, most commentators sceptically note the »medialisation« of politics, according to which media staging increasingly superimposes parliamentary debates and decision-making processes.
Our research focus »Parliament and Public« explores the complex relationship between both institutions from a long-term historical perspective, beginning with the late eighteenth century and continuing into the present. Two closely intertwined aspects are in this respect decisive. The first assumption is that modern parliamentarianism inherently requires an institutionalised public. As the liberal expert for constitutional law, Karl Rotteck, concisely put it already in the 1830s: there is no representation without the public. According to the second assumption, parliaments and their members can credibly claim to act on behalf of the »nation« or the »people« only if they manage to maintain sustainable and mutual communication with their voters. Otherwise their claim misses the mark. In this sense, the history of parliamentary public is also a history of parliamentary power.
The functional correlation between parliament and public that emerged around 1800 has, up to the present day, shaped the political arena. It has in fact been changed in many ways by several media »revolutions« such as the rise of the popular mass press in the late nineteenth century or of electronic media in the twentieth century. The basic principle, however, prevailed. A discussion is needed on whether the described functional correlation is under serious threat from current developments of the political system – for example the increasing transfer of power to European institutions – and of the media system – including the internet. In this case, the principle of modern political representation, that is parliamentarianism, is also jeopardised.
Ende der Bonner Republik? Der Berlin-Beschluss 1991 und sein Kontext / End of the Bonn Republic? The Berlin decision of 1991 and its context
25 years after the move to Berlin, this volume is the first historical contextualisation of the transition from Bonn to Berlin.
On 20 June 1991, the Bundestag in Bonn decided that Berlin – in addition to its function as the German capital – should also be the seat of parliament and government. The decision, taken by a narrow but clear majority, was also a consequence of German reunification at the end of the Cold War. The relocation of the political establishment from the western to the eastern edge of the country also took place in the midst of accelerating processes of change in politics, society, culture and the media. In this context, the Germans’self-image was also renegotiated – metaphorically represented by the place names “Bonn” and “Berlin”.
The book reconstructs the decision-making process in parliament, reflects on the process of transition in the light of contemporary aesthetic and intellectual discourses and analyses both memories and literary representations of the “Bonn Republic”. The result is a multifaceted picture of the Federal Republic shortly after reunification – raising the question: What was and what remains of Bonn?
