(Reforms; 04-03; p.3)

German conservatism e.g. never saw dispute as a normal or preferable method to gain something new but as an aberration that has to be rejected. Pointed: the only time, when German conservatives turned revolutionary, it had fatal consequences for the young Weimar democracy. (If you are interested in that topic, you will find an abundance of literature also in English.)
Moreover, sixteen years of spiritual-moral buddy building between 1982 and 1998 at least fostered a congruous buddy-bonded culture of discussions.

The minor government party, the Greens, obviously has not such a problem with unfiltered discussions. It might be overestimated to ground their evolution on rather restricted paths for discussion in the SPD of the late 1970s; the catch phrase of "root democracy" - the original German expression is "Basisdemokratie" - and the permanent difficulties that upper party officials encounter whenever they try to box through positions and persons indicate, however, a substantially different political culture.

In regard to legitimacy, the behaviour of the so called Rürup-commission for the health system is interesting, too. The commission is named after its chair-man and consists of selected scientists who should work out propositions for a viable national health system.
In contrast to some expectations, the commission did come up with different proposals and outlined respective consequences, but did not decide upon political questions. That was symbolised in the so called y-model: for the near future effective measures could be found and agreed upon, long-term structural reforms - the "branches" of the y - can only be brought about by an informed, but still political decision.
- So, the commission acted in a way, the German justice e.g. may not: the scientists put a political question back to the politicians. The opportunity to get advice from a professional, even if not always party independent side, has been seized occasionally since the "enquête-commissions" had been established in the 1970s. Thus, they can help make decisions based on reasons, but that does not include legitimising them as well. (read on here)