The Social Democrats in Germany. A once proud and powerful party. It has contributed considerably to Germany's present position and reputation in the world. Not just Willy Brandt's "Ostpolitik" and Helmut Schmidt's loyalty to NATO are strong "wins" in the SPD's record.
Since Gerhard Schröder took over the chancellory and also the party leadership, things have begun to deteriorate.
His "HARTZ IV"-reforms of the social welfare system have alienated the party from it's once hailed chief. Schröder threw the party leadership away in 2003. Since then the SPD has seen three other leaders! What a pityful state of sclerosis for this once dominating powerhouse in German politics. The present leader Kurt Beck was known to most Germans as "problem-bear" for his poor performance in managing political issues. Only the fact that no-one else was prepared or powerful enough to rund for leader saved him from political oblivion.
Whereas Beck has since then started to get rid of a couple of possible contenders, the sclerotic process of the SPD continues to progress: Wolfgang Clement, who was deputy leader of the SPD until last October, Prime Minister of the former SPD-stronghold state of North-Rhine-Westpahlia and "Super-Minister" for Economics and Labour in Gerhard Schröder's cabinet, is the most recent protagonist to attract calls for a stripping of the SPD-membership.
Like Schröder, he has has been hired as a consultant and lobbyist, for the RWE AG in his case.
Unlike Schröder however, he has failed to secure himself the backing of the party in due time by hitting the political opponent squarely in face. Clement has only issued a strong warning against the course of the SPD-leader in the state of Hesse, Andrea Ypsilanti, who's political agenda in favour of regenerative power sources would put the "industrial basis of Hesse in jeopardy".
When asked to comment on this, Beck did not focus on Clement's warning, which many think is correct, but on his function as "a paid lobbyist for the nuclear industry".
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Friday, October 26, 2007
Leadership Contest
The SPD, or Social Democratic Party of Germany, who used to lead the coalition with the Green party from 1998 to 2005, and are now junior partner of Angela Merkel's Christian Democratoc Union (CDU), is currently holding its party conference in Hamburg. They have re-elected Kurt Beck as their leader. This confirms Beck as one of the most important politicians in Germany, even though he is unknown to quite a few of the 80-million Germans. That's why you don't have to feel bad for not knowing Beck's name. He is definetely not owner of the famous beer brand (which isn't German anymore, but belongs to Interbrew today).
Well, back to Beck. His poor ratings in the polls, together with a meager performance in national politics (Beck tried to improve the situation for the unemployed with "water and soap and a decent shave", but failed to get support for a peace-conference on Afghanistan with "moderate Taliban"), raised serious concerns amongst observers about the future of Beck as Party leader and challenger to Chancelloress Merkel in 2009.
The problem for the SPD was, it had devoured as much as three leaders in less than three years, four in six years, if you include Oskar Lafontaine. He was succeeded by frm. Chancellor Schröder, who handed over to Franz Müntefering in an attempt to rally party support for his AGENDA. Müntefering, threw the chairmanship away when the party-board refused to appoint a close aide as party-COO and was followed by Matthias Platzeck, a youngish prime minister of the Land of Brandenburg (the region surrounding, but excluding the capital Berlin) who suffered two breakdowns and a burn-out before resigning and handing over to Beck.
Why Beck?, many asked back then in November 2006. Almost everybody could do the math for themselves: With the exeption of Klaus Wowereit, mayor of Berlin, all other contenders for the leadership had already lost one or more elections to the CDU. Gabriel was dethroned in 2003 by Wulff in Lower Saxony, Scholz lost to Ole von Beust in Hamburg in 2001, Steinbrück lost to Rüttgers in Northrhine-Westphalia in 2005. Beck was the only remaining governing Prime Minister (Rhineland-Palatinate) for the SPD in the former West-Germany, and appeared to be to the SPD-majority more main-stream-appealing than the flashy Berlin Mayor, not so much because the latter confessed he was gay, but because he had the gutts to form a coalition with the post-communist PDS (LEFT). This is still a political sacrilege in the West where the vast majority of Germans live.
Consequently, when Beck tried to grasp the last straw within his reach and launched the revision of Gerhard Schröder's "AGENDA" (risking to be called a coward for giving in to the LEFT, which by then had been taken over by the former SPD-leader Lafontaine), it was a choice between "Pest or Cholera". Müntefering, still Vice-Chancellor in the Merkel-administration, opposed strongly, and with what many perceived to be the more convincing position: He urged to stick with the labour-market-reforms that had only paved the way for economic recovery and the very tax surplus which Beck wants to hand over to those who are unemployed and older than 55 yrs. This group suffers, because the have contributed for the longest time to the social security system and were getting not more in return than the unemployed drop-out that never had a job. The problem according to many economists: Beck's plans are not only giving away the surplus from the economic boom, but will reappear on a monthly basis as a multi-million check from the treasury even when the country is in recession again.
However, it was clear to all: Beck needed to prevail this time, or else the SPD would be in need of the next leader. That's why Franz Müntefering lost, and Kurt Beck was re-elected toady as Party Leader of the SPD!
Well, back to Beck. His poor ratings in the polls, together with a meager performance in national politics (Beck tried to improve the situation for the unemployed with "water and soap and a decent shave", but failed to get support for a peace-conference on Afghanistan with "moderate Taliban"), raised serious concerns amongst observers about the future of Beck as Party leader and challenger to Chancelloress Merkel in 2009.
The problem for the SPD was, it had devoured as much as three leaders in less than three years, four in six years, if you include Oskar Lafontaine. He was succeeded by frm. Chancellor Schröder, who handed over to Franz Müntefering in an attempt to rally party support for his AGENDA. Müntefering, threw the chairmanship away when the party-board refused to appoint a close aide as party-COO and was followed by Matthias Platzeck, a youngish prime minister of the Land of Brandenburg (the region surrounding, but excluding the capital Berlin) who suffered two breakdowns and a burn-out before resigning and handing over to Beck.
Why Beck?, many asked back then in November 2006. Almost everybody could do the math for themselves: With the exeption of Klaus Wowereit, mayor of Berlin, all other contenders for the leadership had already lost one or more elections to the CDU. Gabriel was dethroned in 2003 by Wulff in Lower Saxony, Scholz lost to Ole von Beust in Hamburg in 2001, Steinbrück lost to Rüttgers in Northrhine-Westphalia in 2005. Beck was the only remaining governing Prime Minister (Rhineland-Palatinate) for the SPD in the former West-Germany, and appeared to be to the SPD-majority more main-stream-appealing than the flashy Berlin Mayor, not so much because the latter confessed he was gay, but because he had the gutts to form a coalition with the post-communist PDS (LEFT). This is still a political sacrilege in the West where the vast majority of Germans live.
Consequently, when Beck tried to grasp the last straw within his reach and launched the revision of Gerhard Schröder's "AGENDA" (risking to be called a coward for giving in to the LEFT, which by then had been taken over by the former SPD-leader Lafontaine), it was a choice between "Pest or Cholera". Müntefering, still Vice-Chancellor in the Merkel-administration, opposed strongly, and with what many perceived to be the more convincing position: He urged to stick with the labour-market-reforms that had only paved the way for economic recovery and the very tax surplus which Beck wants to hand over to those who are unemployed and older than 55 yrs. This group suffers, because the have contributed for the longest time to the social security system and were getting not more in return than the unemployed drop-out that never had a job. The problem according to many economists: Beck's plans are not only giving away the surplus from the economic boom, but will reappear on a monthly basis as a multi-million check from the treasury even when the country is in recession again.
However, it was clear to all: Beck needed to prevail this time, or else the SPD would be in need of the next leader. That's why Franz Müntefering lost, and Kurt Beck was re-elected toady as Party Leader of the SPD!
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Checking the EU
Summer. Parliament has broken up for the recess. Awareness for political issues is low, as the business and most of it's protagonists are slowing down from the ordinary speed during the rest of the year. "Sommerloch", or summer hollow, is what it is called, when nothing happens, and many issues make it to the breaking news that otherwise would have gone down the drain right away. "Orchids", just for few people who like them.
I don't think this applies at all to an interview with the German Supreme Court's president, Hans-Jürgen Papier, in today's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. But I think it is rather queer that he should be asked to comment on the necessary checks and balances the European Union and it's jurisdiction by the European Court of Justice need, when practically everyone is out on the beach. Let's hope the members of the cabinet's in Berlin and Brussels have made sure they don't miss out in this one, because it is dynamite.
Papier ist not the first, but certainly not the least in a row of prominent experts which are sceptical of the drain of sovereignty EU member states have had to face over the years. Especially the principle of subsidiarity needs to be enforced, argues Papier:
Papier does not hold the European Court of Justice responsible for the enforcement, but the parliaments of member states. What he doesn't say, but means, is that it is those parliaments which fail mostly. Consequently, the member state's supreme courts are the true guardians of the principle of subsidiarity. They, and not the European Court of Justice, are the true guardians according to Papier. Whereas the ECJ may rule about the implementation of Law of the Community, the Supreme Courts of the member states can order their parliaments to ignore EU-law which violates the member states' constitution in the first place.
After all, as Papier pointed out:
The EU is nothing but a federation of independent states, not a federal rebublic!
I will continue on this later, when I have returned from a business trip to Berlin.
I don't think this applies at all to an interview with the German Supreme Court's president, Hans-Jürgen Papier, in today's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. But I think it is rather queer that he should be asked to comment on the necessary checks and balances the European Union and it's jurisdiction by the European Court of Justice need, when practically everyone is out on the beach. Let's hope the members of the cabinet's in Berlin and Brussels have made sure they don't miss out in this one, because it is dynamite.
Papier ist not the first, but certainly not the least in a row of prominent experts which are sceptical of the drain of sovereignty EU member states have had to face over the years. Especially the principle of subsidiarity needs to be enforced, argues Papier:
FAZ: You are not satisfied with the way the principle of subsidiarity is applied?
Papier: No. the principle belongs to the judicial codex of the EU, but practically doesn't play any role. This must be changed!
Papier does not hold the European Court of Justice responsible for the enforcement, but the parliaments of member states. What he doesn't say, but means, is that it is those parliaments which fail mostly. Consequently, the member state's supreme courts are the true guardians of the principle of subsidiarity. They, and not the European Court of Justice, are the true guardians according to Papier. Whereas the ECJ may rule about the implementation of Law of the Community, the Supreme Courts of the member states can order their parliaments to ignore EU-law which violates the member states' constitution in the first place.
After all, as Papier pointed out:
The EU is nothing but a federation of independent states, not a federal rebublic!
I will continue on this later, when I have returned from a business trip to Berlin.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Quo vadis, Germany?
Hi, I was encouraged to start this blog on German politics after a meeting with Steve Clemons from The Washington Note. We met courtesy of the Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation to discuss web 2.0-strategies for Germany. There are very few political blogs on Germany (in relation to Germany's political weight and the number of political blogs elsewhere). Few blogs in German (I have started one a few month ago. Go and have a look:www.fette-henne.info), but even less in English.
After re-thinking this fact, I figured that there may be many people on the bloggosphere who are interested in political blogs about Germany, but are not familiar with the German language. It is for those of you that I have decided to start fat-chicken.info! I will try to post regularly. Sometimes these will be similar or identital to those on fette-henne.info and sometimes they may be completely different. It will depend on the issues which are concerned.
Today, I decided to start with a piece on the situation in the Grand Coalition here at half-time (well, it would be half-time, if SPD and CDU/CSU stick together for the rest of the legislation period ending in the fall of 2009). Chancellor Merkel has held a press conference just before breaking up for the summer recess on the coalitions scorecard after two years under her rule.
Some commentators have mentioned that those two years, and the improvement of the economic situation have been more of a PR-thing than a real success for Merkel's administration. Some have highlighted the poor climate between the two partners and concluded that a premature end of the coalition would be likely. I don't agree with that.
Obviously a lot of the swing in public opinion towards the work of government has come after Merkel assumed the presidency in the EU as well as in the G8-organization. These external factors have allowed Merkel to display some of her political strenght in negotiating difficult solutions.
But acknowledging this does not imply the domestic scorecard of the coalition were void.
Sure enough, Merkel has a wide gap to bridge between the left of the SPD and the right of the CDU/CSU that constitute the wings of her government. Political settlements have to account for that and may be called weak compromises by purists. On the other hand: Politics is the art of the feasible, and Merkel has proven a champion in this several times:
We must not forget: after the narrow election result in 2005 many expected a coup against Merkel from inside her own party. Her economically liberal election program was seen as the reason why the population did not vote stronger in favour of the CDU. Personally I did not agree to that in the first place, because it exludes the fact that the anti-Kirchhof-propaganda by former chancellor Schröder and his party was endorsed by criticism against Kirchhof and his tax-plans from inside the circle of CDU prime-ministers. But that is another story...
More important is to remember that Ms. Merkel was able to engage her critics in the process of negotiating the coalition-agreement, thus ensuring that whatever deal is struck will be supported by a maximum of political heavy-weights inside her own camp.
In this respect Merkel has not forsaken her own electoral program at all. I am quite convinced that she has not turned her back on the Leipzig-reform-program of the CDU. Instead, she is smart enough to realize it would limit her political leverage if she were to refer to those plans too often. Sticking to what has been agreed upon with the Social Democrats for this legislative period, on the contrary, shows in my view her determination to act as the leading and controlling part of this coalition, which she knows is a precondition for any success in the next polls. It has been eight years since I have worked for Ms. Merkel, but I am certain that she is still committed to the Leipzig-reform-program. This was, first of all, her personal reform program. If she hadn't been convinced it would be the right thing to do, she would have prevented it from happening then. Because she didn't, and because she did not renounce since (which, if it were her inner conviction, she would have done long since the 22nd of September 2005!), we can be sure that she has but stored it safely away. Waiting for better times and a coalition partner willing to go along.
For the moment, she knows that what the coalition has reached so far (reform of the federal system, health reform, corporate tax reform, new approach for raising and educating children et. al.) is the maximum that is possible with this government. Stronger opposition to the SPD within this government would lead to it's breakup and, according to all polls, to a leftist government even though the CDU might earn more votes than the SPD. Thus, leading this government constructively according to what was agreed upon, is the smart thing to do. I agree!
After re-thinking this fact, I figured that there may be many people on the bloggosphere who are interested in political blogs about Germany, but are not familiar with the German language. It is for those of you that I have decided to start fat-chicken.info! I will try to post regularly. Sometimes these will be similar or identital to those on fette-henne.info and sometimes they may be completely different. It will depend on the issues which are concerned.
Today, I decided to start with a piece on the situation in the Grand Coalition here at half-time (well, it would be half-time, if SPD and CDU/CSU stick together for the rest of the legislation period ending in the fall of 2009). Chancellor Merkel has held a press conference just before breaking up for the summer recess on the coalitions scorecard after two years under her rule.
Some commentators have mentioned that those two years, and the improvement of the economic situation have been more of a PR-thing than a real success for Merkel's administration. Some have highlighted the poor climate between the two partners and concluded that a premature end of the coalition would be likely. I don't agree with that.
Obviously a lot of the swing in public opinion towards the work of government has come after Merkel assumed the presidency in the EU as well as in the G8-organization. These external factors have allowed Merkel to display some of her political strenght in negotiating difficult solutions.
But acknowledging this does not imply the domestic scorecard of the coalition were void.
Sure enough, Merkel has a wide gap to bridge between the left of the SPD and the right of the CDU/CSU that constitute the wings of her government. Political settlements have to account for that and may be called weak compromises by purists. On the other hand: Politics is the art of the feasible, and Merkel has proven a champion in this several times:
We must not forget: after the narrow election result in 2005 many expected a coup against Merkel from inside her own party. Her economically liberal election program was seen as the reason why the population did not vote stronger in favour of the CDU. Personally I did not agree to that in the first place, because it exludes the fact that the anti-Kirchhof-propaganda by former chancellor Schröder and his party was endorsed by criticism against Kirchhof and his tax-plans from inside the circle of CDU prime-ministers. But that is another story...
More important is to remember that Ms. Merkel was able to engage her critics in the process of negotiating the coalition-agreement, thus ensuring that whatever deal is struck will be supported by a maximum of political heavy-weights inside her own camp.
In this respect Merkel has not forsaken her own electoral program at all. I am quite convinced that she has not turned her back on the Leipzig-reform-program of the CDU. Instead, she is smart enough to realize it would limit her political leverage if she were to refer to those plans too often. Sticking to what has been agreed upon with the Social Democrats for this legislative period, on the contrary, shows in my view her determination to act as the leading and controlling part of this coalition, which she knows is a precondition for any success in the next polls. It has been eight years since I have worked for Ms. Merkel, but I am certain that she is still committed to the Leipzig-reform-program. This was, first of all, her personal reform program. If she hadn't been convinced it would be the right thing to do, she would have prevented it from happening then. Because she didn't, and because she did not renounce since (which, if it were her inner conviction, she would have done long since the 22nd of September 2005!), we can be sure that she has but stored it safely away. Waiting for better times and a coalition partner willing to go along.
For the moment, she knows that what the coalition has reached so far (reform of the federal system, health reform, corporate tax reform, new approach for raising and educating children et. al.) is the maximum that is possible with this government. Stronger opposition to the SPD within this government would lead to it's breakup and, according to all polls, to a leftist government even though the CDU might earn more votes than the SPD. Thus, leading this government constructively according to what was agreed upon, is the smart thing to do. I agree!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
