International

Controversy over partial lockdown: talk of breaking the law uses false myth – politics

The heads of the executive have ordered a break in public life in the Federal Republic, which will be extended. Everything that makes free time fun should be close by. Contact bans are designed to prevent people from meeting. After all, you can have your hair cut.

After the lockdown in the spring, the country will enter the second tough phase of the fight against the virus, which in the near future will no longer be as frightened and moved as the first. The conflicts of recent months have sharpened the senses with which to turn the pandemic into politics and gain influence. A polyphonic chorus of experts has replaced Drosten’s monopoly and the medical profession is divided. The opposition in parliament has found a topic that has long dominated resistance on the street and on social media: those up there are dictating a life that wants less and less to go down.

It is the logic of the media to focus on conflict

It is the peculiarity of the logic of the mass media to draw attention to such discrepancies and thereby exacerbate the conflicts. But do they reflect what moves people? They all have their own truths and their own feelings, and at the same time no one is free from the moods that others create. They change almost daily with the course of the infection curves; Corona accelerates, Corona puts pressure.

It becomes all the more important not to let yourself drift. It doesn’t matter in which direction. The current resolutions obviously deserve skepticism as to whether they are needed in this generalized form and whether the legal regulations they entail differentiate sufficiently. After all, a hygiene-compliant hotel business is likely to remain less contagious in the long run than a hot club night.

The violation deserves skepticism, but also criticism

But criticism of the resolutions, which, as is often the case here in this country, expressly legalistic in form, perhaps deserves more skepticism. There is much talk about the state of emergency and the lack of legal bases, indeed the failure of the Bundestag and a lack of democracy.

It is true that the Infection Protection Act lacks provisions that can justify such drastic measures with certainty. The executive branch has allowed itself all too broadly. Instead of catching up on this in a neat debate, because it would have been worthy of a democratic dealings with the opposition, they embarked on a seemingly carefree summer. A mistake, because this shortcoming now fosters the myth that pandemic policies take place as a series of violations of fundamental rights. Something similar happened during the refugee crisis, which, according to a lack of but widespread opinion, introduced a “rule of injustice”.

Some are only interested in political gain

There is a lot of rhetoric involved, which can tempt someone to interpret a ruling by the administrative judge on a housing ban as the articulation of the resistance of the people. But it is not. The cautious approach taken by the federal and state governments, which mainly calculates the threat of overloading the hospital wards, is apparently supported by a large majority, including in parliament, which has so far not been in the arms of the government. That democracy is currently being damaged or that fundamental rights are being trampled on remains a claim by those who expect it to benefit politically.

Report Rating
Close