Politics at Distance : Parliamentary Politics in the Face of New Challenges

L’enfer, c’est les autres, declared Jean-Paul Sartre. In the context of the corona pandemic, Sartre’s statement has gained a new level of existential significance. The proximity with others, possible bearers of the virus, is now a vice to be avoided. More prosaically, Max Weber demanded from politicians Distanz zu den Dingen and Menschen. Combining Weber and Sartre requires a politics that cultivates distance and neutralises proximity. In this chapter, I compare the challenges two ideal types of political action, movement politics and signature politics, present to parliamentary politics as a paradigmatic example of politics at distance that still requires a certain proximity. While movement politics relies on proximity and identity, signature politics cultivates distance but excludes debate, the main merit of parliamentary politics. All three share the principle that the persons supporting a policy or decision will be counted and not weighted. Combining presence and distance in parliaments, I discuss the dangers proximity and action at distance face in digitalised debates. Beyond spatial distance, I analyse the parliamentary requirements of orality and visibility as well as the possibilities of simultaneity and presence of other debates. I also explore how parliamentary distance can be utilised as a medium to extend the politics of parliamentary presence.