Germany's government failed - re-election this fall

Great Debates
1

The left-wing coalition of Chancellor Schröder’s SPD party and the Greens lost the election in the largest (population-wise) of Germany’s 16 states today with huge losses, prompting Schröder, who’s ruling on the federal level with the same coalition, to announce general elections this fall, one year earlier than scheduled. The state in question, North Rhine-Westphalia, was the party’s last important stronghold.

BBC news story.

Practically, this means the SPD/Green government is breaking down. Given the current sentiments in the country, Schröder can hardly win elections this year unless the opposition fails to nominate a candidate for Chancellor smoothly as they did in 2002.
Personally, I have always been a bit left-of-center, maybe a bit more left than now in my teenage years, but even now I feel much more sympathy for the SPD than for the conservative CDU. Yet I think Schröder, at least in the past few years, was one single large failure. All he did was to muddle through, evading one problem and getting into the next one, thereby doing much damage to things he exploited for his desperate efforts to stay in office - for example the demolition of the Euro stability agreements in order to evade well-deserved reproach from Brussels for the current budget deficits.

I’d like to hear opinions from dopers, especially outside Germany because I’m interested in the international point of view, on this.

2

I wish I could contribute something to the discussion! I took six semesters of German in college but I know very little about their government. When you get a chance, is it possible you can explain a bit about the German government. How is it run? Does it parallel the U.S. system at all? I don’t mean to hijack your thread, of course. :wink:

  • Honesty
3

I wouldn’t care about Shreoder except that he was a bumbling fool who ran on anti-Americanism to cover his butt. I’d have more sympathy for the german voters if they hadn’t bought it.

4

Basically:

federal elections (every 4 years) -> elect Bundestag (lower chamber) -> elects Chancellor = chief executive (and can unelect Chancellor at any time by electing someone else - happened once, in 1982)

16 state (Länder, sg. Land) elections (every 4 or 5 years) -> elect state parliament -> elects state prime minister (governor) -> governs with state cabinet -> state cabinet appoints Bundesrat (federal upper chamber) representative of state

Federal elections have always, and state election have almost always, elected parliaments with no majority of a single party, so coalitions are the rule.

The usual modes of coalition are:
red/green - Social Democrats=SPD (slightly left) plus Greens (ecological/socially liberal). Currently in government on the federal level
black/yellow - Christian Democrats=CDU (slightly right) plus Free Democrats=FDP (economically right of Christian Democrats, socially partly left of them). Currently in govermnent in most states.
Grand Coalition - Social Democrats plus Christian Democrats (thought of as a coalition of last resort)
Traffic Light Coalition: red/green plus Free Democrats (infrequently - Free Democats are more comfortable with Christian Democrats)
black/green: sometimes mooted by Greens who don’t want to tie their party’s fortunes too tight to the Social Democrats

Today’s state election result is critical on the federal level because the Bundesrat (federal upper house) has to approve all federal legislation that is executed by state’s civil services or that influence the states’ finances. Which is most of the significant legislation because of the principle of executive federalism: the civil service is on the state level, even in the fields where the federal parliament legislates exclusively. For example: criminal law is federal; courts and prisons are run by the states. The income tax is legislated federally; it is raised by the states’ civil services and distributed according to rules agreed between the federal and the state goverments.

So, when the parties that are in opposition on the federal level are in control of a firm majority, via state governments, of the federal upper chamber they pretty much thwart most significant federal policy initiatives. Which would make the remaining time until the regular federal elections a pretty awful time to be in government.

Which seems to be while Gerhard Schröder has now taken the plunge and will try for either political euthanasia or a new mandate, the momentum of which would then help in state elections. The latter seems to be an outside chance but the opposition may yet snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, as they did in 2000 (ascendancy in states cut short by a party-finance scandal) and 2002 (equivocating on Iraq, unconvincing reactions to floods, internal rivalries).

5

I wouldn’t actually call Schröder anti-American; he disagreed with the Iraq War, as did most of the German - and European - public, but neither he nor his government nor the German public is decidedly anti-American in a sense of opposing anything that’s American simply because it is American.

6

I don’t dislike them for disagreeing, but the way they ran the campaign was to insult, degrade, and otherwise spit on America… for votes. Yes, I know most of the people on this board are lefties and I know most of you hate Bush and consider him the the next Hitler, a monster, an idiot, conspiring to destroy the US, destroying the US by accident, ad infinitum, ad naseum.

I don’t. And I consider German opposition ignorant, shallow, self-interested, and hypocritical. Same with France. I was in germany when we final invaded Iraq. They loved Saddam in Berlin. That fact that he consciously imitated Hitler either did not register or they liked it. I’m not sure which I find more worrsome.

In contrast to most American lefties, whom I consider and considered wrongheaded about the war and who do not see the picture large and small, but whom I think understand the basic facts of the matter, the germans seemed both shallow and ignorant about modern affairs. They’ve boiled themselves down to having no worthwhile beliefs, opinions, or goals. They have no

Take Schoeder’s party. The SPD wants to increase social services, despite it being blatantly obvious that the government is choking out the private sector. If economic conditions in germany prevailed here, we’d be marching in the streets and sending everyone in Washington home for good. Economists have been pointing out the problems for years. Schroeder (and I give him credit for this) at least took some steps to reduce the government drag on the economy. What do the Germans do? They howl for his ouster and demand their benefits back. And that howling is them complaining about “US-Style” Capitalism.

For all their supposed cosmopolitanism, I find the Germans are small-minded and provincial people who want nothing more than to live comfortably off someone else’s labors. This is hardly unusual. I would not care if they did not simeulateously pride themselves on being broad-minded citizens of the world who are all nobler and work harder than everyone else.

This is, of course, a very specific picure of an entire nation. But between the time I spent there and the time I spend reading about what is going on there, I do not at all admire what the Germans have become.

7

If you have been to Germany just before or during the war, you surely noticed that German politicians are extremely careful to compare anything that’s going on in current politics, whether domestic or foreign, to the national socialist era; in fact, a federal minister was not re-appointed after Schröder won his re-election in 2002 because she mentioned Bush and Hitler in the same sentence in a camapign rally somewhere in the province, and whenever similar incidents occur, the person in question can be sure to get under heavy public criticism from both he left and right wing. You don’t need to regard Bush as the next Hitler to oppose the Iraq war; in fact, I think the discussion about this issue was fairly objective in Germany as well as most of the other countries that opposed the war.

This last sentence is nonsense. Everybody agreed Saddam was a tyrant and the world would be better off without him having power in Baghdad; the discussion was about whether war would be the adequate solution to this problem. Germany and France said no; others said yes.
And what exactly did you consider ignorant, shallow, self-interested, and hypocritical about European opposition to the war?

I think we have one basic opinion: No more wars. It took us two world wars to learn this lesson, but we finally learned it, and every German government since 1945 has been eager to keep Germany out of military actions whenever possible.

Germany has a long tradition of state-controlled social security, funded by means of comparatively high taxes. You might disagree with this, and I’m not saying it ought to serve as a role model for the rest of the world, but it’s the German way, and to some extent - the exact extent is disputed among lawyers - provided for in the constitution. In the past few years people realized the level of social security must be reduced if we want to prevent the system from collapsing under its financial burdens; and Schröder made some efforts to reform it (mainly by cutting welfare payments). But a complete abolition of the system is something the public doesn’t want, and the Constitutional Cour would probably regard as unconstitutional.

You do know that Germany, despite current economic crisis, still is the world’s fifth largest economy (Cite: CIA World Factbook)? Surely someone has to produce all this.

8

No, they didn’t, and that was the problem. I don’t see tyrants as people you deal with. You order to do something or you destroy them. They’re not worthy to lick the boots of good people.

Specifically? Blind opposition to war with the pretense of moral reasons while your politicians took in lots of money from Saddam. Of course, Germany wasn’t as bad as France or even some people in England. But the point holds. I have the same opinion about some American profiteers.

I know. And I understand why. But I don’t feel its a very deep idea. It’s shallow at heart, representing a refusal to take responsibility for things - and in this case, an attempt to stop others from doing so.

Germany oscillates wildly between believing its better than everyone else, believing its worse than everyone else, and just wishing to be no different than everyone else. If it wants to be great it needs to choose greatness. That doesn’t neccessarily mean military conquest, but it probably means accepting a role in keeping the world safe for the Good.

If not, Germany will languish where it is, unsure of wha it wants to become.

Yes. It’s also doing very poorly at that, and simply doesn’t live up to its full potential.

I know. It dates back primarily to Bismark in its modern incarnation (I’m not, I admit, particularly familiar with the taxation and social policies of Prussia alone). I believe it gives too much power to the government and creates too many social interests. The US is bad enough, but I could never live in Germany.

9

Tell it to Pervez Musharraf. The world is full of tyrants, deposing them all is impossible, and sometimes you have to deal with them because they have something you need.

But the Germans have shown willingness to do that, including sending their troops into combat zones, despite their understandable ambivalence. See the OP in this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=269082

:confused: How are “social interests” something you could have too many of?

10

How is that “blatantly obvious” in Germany? (The answer might be relevant to this thread: “Any correlation between economic health and government’s share of GDP?” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=317620)

11

He is a dictator. And possibly a tyrant. On the other hand, he’s not terrribly objectionable and doesn’t engage in various massacres. I admit, I don’t neccewssarily demand democracy in every society. They have to want it, and frankly, his people don’t seem to yet. Perhaps that will change, and if he tries to hang on then by military force I would support his opposition. I am even willing t deal temporarily in the very short term with those I dislike. But only with the understanding on both sides that we will turn on him.

Only with great prodding by the US, and as they keep cutting their military budgets back to the bone. But military action wasn’t what I was talking about. Germany doesn’t seem to care for anything outside Europe, and not much within it. They could have influence for much good if they chose, but instead the government shrinks from bold action, cowering within the safe and well-known threats. Its eternal excuse for cowardice is that, “It will cause chaos!” Of course it might. That’s the point. The status quo, IMHO, is simply unacceptable. This is the 21st century. It’s time the world entered it together.

And I don’t expect Germany to march lockstep with the US, but I expect respect from the German government.

I wasn’t clear enough; I’m talking about people and companies rigging the economic game for their own gain, passing the costs onto others.

I actually think some of their mass transit support is a good thing, since it works for them. I’m not sure it’s such a good idea in the US because people in the US have a differnt lifestyle, needs, and opportunities. But there are too many other problems wit their budgeting, and too many people who don’t see the vast costs of their luxury.

12

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]

Take Schoeder’s party. The SPD wants to increase social services, despite it being blatantly obvious that the government is choking out the private sector…
For all their supposed cosmopolitanism, I find the Germans are small-minded and provincial people who want nothing more than to live comfortably off someone else’s labors. QUOTE]
Ok, imho, his failure has more to do with Germany’s high unemployment rate, under his clock, and his party’s propensity towards more social services ($$$$), and LACK of negotiating skills between Germany and its international trade alliances. DITTO regarding Germans (yea i know it’s a stereotype, but some stereotypes don’t come from a vacuum, if ya know what i mean) wanting to live off the backs of others hard labor… or more specifically, when contracting w/intn’l companies, German’s MUST be in the Managing and decision-making positions.

ciao!

13

Case in point: International Herald Tribune - Europe 2 May 2005 Broke but dynamic, Berlin seeks new identity

14

Part of it goes back to a truly monumentally bad decision made back in the 90’s, during reunification. The government decided to change in Ostmarks for Westmarks at a 1-for-1 ratio. This made everybody feel good for a day. It also obliterated the eastern economy. They would have had a tough time competing at a cost advantage. It was impossible for them to do it once their costs became that high.

Moreover, in the case of Berlin itself, the governments merged but didn’t fire anyone, and continued to rack up debt with big new public buildings and services. (The tax rate in Berlin is unholy. No business wants to work in Berlin if they can avoid it.) Even the government move back to Berlin and the new interest sparked by reunificaiton produced only a mild, temporary boom.

Frankly, the Germans themselves are not helping matters with the “Wessi’s” thinking of the “Ossi’s” as lazy people and the “Ossi’s” thinkin of the “Wessi’s” as arrogant jerks. Actually, both stereoypes do have some basis in real life, but most do; it’s the moral judgement where we go wrong. And of course, the Bavarians just want to roll their eyes and smack them both upside the head. :smiley: