Well, the last entry seems to be ages ago. In the meantime, we celebrated the arrival of our first child and between diaper changes, bottle feedings and making lots of coffee there was little time to follow politics in Canada and Germany and even less to write about it.
A lot has happened on both sides of the ocean. Canada has called for an election. I was surprised how different and how institutional the procedures were when the opposition called a non-confidence vote. The first surprise was the fact that the vote was not confidential. The second one was that it was rather a noisy affair which made it almost too much fun to watch considering the fact that a government that has lost the confidence of the Parliament is really not a good thing. The reserved German in me wanted to jump up and yell Yeah and Nay in front of the TV.
The campaign has been a whole different affair on the fun side. To be honest this was the most passionless and boring campaign I have ever witnessed and as a Political Scientist I daresay that I have witnessed a few. Surely, the parties had only little time to prepare an agenda, however, the non-confidence vote and the resulting elections came nowhere out of the blue. And a party that has an agenda ready does not need much preparation time in case of a campaign. The other way around: if you cannot come up with some big picture for the future in a time of need, then maybe you are lacking the picture at all.
Stephen Harper and that Ignatieff guy look pretty much the same. I don´t mean their faces or their way to dress, but their whole habitus: the way they both speak and act and the political persona they try to represent. Does it surprise anybody that the majority of voters voted for Harper in that case? I would have voted for the one that I already know, he might be the lesser evil. Definetly the lesser risk. Some Germans were surprised by the majority situation for Harper, but this is based on our different political culture which prefers a coalition over a one-party-government.
Michael Ignatieff had one major problem during the campaign: his appearance. My better half found him not trustworthy, a friend called him a mean person. I think he appeared a little - let´s say slow. I am pretty sure that he is none of the above mentioned. But this is the worst thing that could happen to a politician: people don´t like him. The people. They find him unfit for the office. Hence the whipping that the Liberals received.
As a new immigrant to this country I don´t share the strong feelings that a lot of Canadians have for or against the Bloc Quebecoise. It was again the Political Scientist in me that was intrigued by the sheer fact how fast a party can be wiped out from the political scene. Obviously, their agenda was not contemporary anymore.
In Germany, this has happened to the Conservatives, at least in some of our provinces, the so-called Bundesländer. Germany has his first Green Premier, head over a green-red government, again a first. And this in a province that has been Conservative since the days of Adam and Eve. Truly conservative. Again, German voters have shown their unpredictability. And not many analysts have seen this coming which means for the future that no party or government has any guarantee at all. The voters will show their will at the election day and parties have to form coalitions according to that will. Is that not a truly democratic idea?
what else is knew? Germany lost his Defense Minister. Obviously many parts of his PhD thesis were rip-offs, his thesis a fraud. And he is not the only one. A lot of people were happy to see him go. He represented the German past: noble, male, impeccable and just a little bit to clean. Other loved him for exactly the same reasons and saw a future Chancellor in him.
Germany´s Minister of Foreign Affairs might be the next to step down from office. Like the Canadian Liberals the German counterpart has lost a huge share of voter confidence. Westerwelle, Minister of Foreign Affairs and chairman of the German Liberals might stumble over his own success and the disappointment of his own party.
Freitag, 13. Mai 2011
Mittwoch, 1. Dezember 2010
Julian Assange - a prophet for freedom or the devil himself?
What is your opinion on the whole Wikileaks? one of my friends asks me. She, a Political Scientist like I am, has at least the opinion that we should indeed have one. An opinion.
I was, to be honest, a bit disappointed. Yes, sure, we all shared a few good laughs on the expense of our politicians and the Western world is most likely not going to be changed or influenced by what the US now call a case of betrayal of state secrets. It is after all not much of a surprise that diplomats, politicians and officials have their own opinions on their respective counterparts. The only news is that US-officials occasionally think the same than us lesser human beings: that the German Minister of Foreign Affairs is not so qualified for his job and that Putin is an alpha-male, for example.
The stir in the mostly authoritarian Arab nations in the Middle and Greater East might be a bit more substantial since criticism towards the rulers is never a good thing in theocracies, dictatorships and their kind. But it would greatly underestimates the smartness of people living in these countries. Like us they have their own view on their leaders. And the Iranian opposition is for sure far from being stunned about the fact, that not all their Muslim neighbors are big fans of Iran - especially not the Sunni ones. The struggle for power between Shiites and Sunni, between secular and religious, between the military and the opposition, the multitude of lines of conflict in the whole area was certainly not generated by Wikileaks and will most likely not be fueled further.
And this is, after all, the only really interesting "betrayal of national and international secrets": some governments in the Middle East and the Gulf urged to US to go hard on Iran. Saudi-Arabia and the US have expressed and acted upon common interests in the past. No big surprise here either. That the Saudis are afraid of the Shiites and their internal opposition and mostly care to secure the political and economically status quo in their country - we all knew that.
But - a whole different storyline seems to developing right know. Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks is now official state enemy no. 1 and not only in the United States of America. And where America´s arrogance when it comes to judging other nations has become pretty obvious over the last few days, we now see a demonstration of its ongoing power as well. Only three countries in the world are considered safe for the now-refugee Assange: Cuba, Iceland and Switzerland. the rest is enemy territory. Other countries, like Ecuador, took back there offers. To long and mighty is the arm of Washington for someone to escape in a world still controlled by American money, military and secret services. This is no news either, but every time we see the prove we should be shocked and outraged. The US are a democracy after all and should therefore face threats in a way suiting a system that above all guarantees the basic human rights. And Julian Assange is no citizen of the United States either. Or is his betrayal really a matter of international concern?
If Assange really has raped two women in Sweden there is no doubt that he has to face the punishment for his actions. One just wishes that other famous rapists had been chased with the same sincerity and willingness to get them into court. Roman Polanski for example. But Assange is a threat and maybe this is a sign that he actually has more in store.
To form an opinion on this, we or I, have to neglect the accusations in Sweden and just focus on the political dimension, the different kind of accusations issued by the American government. Many people did and will interpret the actions of one Julian Assange. Some might consider him a threat to world peace, like such as thing really exists. Other might see him as a modern-world prophet of freedom. Isn´t it our right to know what goes on behind our backs? Are Yemenite citizens in no right of the truth about their government´s cooperation with the US government? Should their not be more transparency when, let´s say, Vladimir Putin and Silvio Berlusconi, both leaders of a democratic nations (at least on paper) exchange expensive gifts (expensive for the tax-payers) and one or two political game plans? Does our right as a citizen really stop with our right to vote and hence delegate our power to a politician within a system? Don´t we have to right to be informed about what said politicians do with that power? Or is it really a threat to world peace when we don´t keep our little mouths and ears shot, oblivious to our surroundings beyond the contains of our shopping carts?
I guess it is an individual decision whether you want to think of Julian Assange as a peace activist or the devil´s advocate.
I was, to be honest, a bit disappointed. Yes, sure, we all shared a few good laughs on the expense of our politicians and the Western world is most likely not going to be changed or influenced by what the US now call a case of betrayal of state secrets. It is after all not much of a surprise that diplomats, politicians and officials have their own opinions on their respective counterparts. The only news is that US-officials occasionally think the same than us lesser human beings: that the German Minister of Foreign Affairs is not so qualified for his job and that Putin is an alpha-male, for example.
The stir in the mostly authoritarian Arab nations in the Middle and Greater East might be a bit more substantial since criticism towards the rulers is never a good thing in theocracies, dictatorships and their kind. But it would greatly underestimates the smartness of people living in these countries. Like us they have their own view on their leaders. And the Iranian opposition is for sure far from being stunned about the fact, that not all their Muslim neighbors are big fans of Iran - especially not the Sunni ones. The struggle for power between Shiites and Sunni, between secular and religious, between the military and the opposition, the multitude of lines of conflict in the whole area was certainly not generated by Wikileaks and will most likely not be fueled further.
And this is, after all, the only really interesting "betrayal of national and international secrets": some governments in the Middle East and the Gulf urged to US to go hard on Iran. Saudi-Arabia and the US have expressed and acted upon common interests in the past. No big surprise here either. That the Saudis are afraid of the Shiites and their internal opposition and mostly care to secure the political and economically status quo in their country - we all knew that.
But - a whole different storyline seems to developing right know. Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks is now official state enemy no. 1 and not only in the United States of America. And where America´s arrogance when it comes to judging other nations has become pretty obvious over the last few days, we now see a demonstration of its ongoing power as well. Only three countries in the world are considered safe for the now-refugee Assange: Cuba, Iceland and Switzerland. the rest is enemy territory. Other countries, like Ecuador, took back there offers. To long and mighty is the arm of Washington for someone to escape in a world still controlled by American money, military and secret services. This is no news either, but every time we see the prove we should be shocked and outraged. The US are a democracy after all and should therefore face threats in a way suiting a system that above all guarantees the basic human rights. And Julian Assange is no citizen of the United States either. Or is his betrayal really a matter of international concern?
If Assange really has raped two women in Sweden there is no doubt that he has to face the punishment for his actions. One just wishes that other famous rapists had been chased with the same sincerity and willingness to get them into court. Roman Polanski for example. But Assange is a threat and maybe this is a sign that he actually has more in store.
To form an opinion on this, we or I, have to neglect the accusations in Sweden and just focus on the political dimension, the different kind of accusations issued by the American government. Many people did and will interpret the actions of one Julian Assange. Some might consider him a threat to world peace, like such as thing really exists. Other might see him as a modern-world prophet of freedom. Isn´t it our right to know what goes on behind our backs? Are Yemenite citizens in no right of the truth about their government´s cooperation with the US government? Should their not be more transparency when, let´s say, Vladimir Putin and Silvio Berlusconi, both leaders of a democratic nations (at least on paper) exchange expensive gifts (expensive for the tax-payers) and one or two political game plans? Does our right as a citizen really stop with our right to vote and hence delegate our power to a politician within a system? Don´t we have to right to be informed about what said politicians do with that power? Or is it really a threat to world peace when we don´t keep our little mouths and ears shot, oblivious to our surroundings beyond the contains of our shopping carts?
I guess it is an individual decision whether you want to think of Julian Assange as a peace activist or the devil´s advocate.
Mittwoch, 24. November 2010
One way to look at Germany, I guess
Yesterday, I read two articles on globeandmail.com about Germany that kept me wondering on how Canada looks at Germany (knowing that these where only two possible perspectives). I have to say, I found both articles pretty, what, naive? Badly researched? A nice gesture for Angela Merkel´s conservative government?
First, Doug Saunders take on how well Germany dealt with the financial crisis - especially compared to other European states. The article is a bit older, from August I think, I just only saw it yesterday.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/broken-europe/hope-germanys-secret-to-recovery/article1659177/
In a sense he is right about the one fact that the government managed to save a good amount of jobs in certain sectors of industry by simply paying a big share of the employees salaries. As the few examples shown say, people were happy that they could keep their jobs, even on a Kurzarbeit- a part-time basis. But here lies the first crucial point that Saunders forgot to mention: people were happy to keep their underpayed jobs because they knew they would not find a new one elsewhere. Especially all he blue-collars over fifty that had been with their company trough most of their working career. The situation for well-experienced workers over fifty on the German job-market is more or less hopeless and they all knew that.
The second point Saunders is not filling to put his finger on is the simple fact that none of these jobs is an investment into the future. As soon as the state will stop funding those jobs, they will vanish and with them what little hope the people on these jobs had. And none of these jobs will ever be a full-time employment again. So, the average worker deals with the fact that he or she can either be unemployed and on social welfare until retirement age or work for half the money and barely above the margin of subsistence for the next two decades.
The German production industry, especially the automotive sector, has been in trouble long before the financial crisis. Like in the United States of America, the inquiry on the market has been constantly declining. Saving those jobs is an act of good will for the single worker but also a show a Germany´s incapability to design a labor market fitting the demands of the 21st century. Hence, the government - and there was a big debate on the point of all these measures, let us keep this in mind, too - as invested highly into the past and not the slightest bit into the future.
And the 7% unemployment rate is a nice little illusion. If you take all the jobs like the above mentioned, where the state pays salaries in sectors that are nowhere the states responsibility, if you take all the 1-Euro-jobs provided by the national agency for employment where the jobholders still receive social welfare to survive, if you take all the jobs where people have to rely on the state in order to survive because their income is above the minimum income needed to exist, if you take all the internships, trainee-ships and voluntary services that academics with a PhD degree do on a regular basis, if you take all these jobs out of the statistics, Germany´s unemployment rate would hit 20 percent. That is the future perspective, unfortunately.
The second article, published yesterday, was actually a bit hilarious because of its clear black-and-white perspective. Dealing with current research on how Canadians are effected by increasing stress levels at work, the German "example" should show that Canadians are all whiny and don´t have the right attitude towards work - unlike the Germans.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/work-life-balance/part-4-harder-worker-no-life-just-act-more-like-the-germans/article1783415/
It is true, Germany has the 38.5 hour week. On paper. Most people work more and for less money, since extra-hours are only rarely paid. And especially in the private sector, somebody who is employed on a 38.5 basis costs less than somebody on a 50 hours week. Yes, there is such a thing as a very protected work environment with companies that have strong Trade Unions. Those are mostly non-profit organizations or old, well established companies. But the ideal conditions the authors points out is a memory from the fairy-tale-land that Germany maybe was in the 1970s, with full employment and a booming economy that gave the Trade Unions a big deal of liberty to ask for anything. Today, as the article above shows, people simply fear for their job and therefore except any condition. There is the many supermarket chains for example that don´t even allow their employees to form or join a union. Their is the many, many middle class companies with less than eight employees that are nowhere politically represented - unlike their bosses.
According to recent research, every third German faces depression, burn-out, allergies and other stress-related illnesses due to the rising pressure at work. A lot of people wish they could downsize and some actually do. Alternative living arrangements, sabbaticals, time off work become more and more common.
Yes, Germans are very industrious and efficient which means that a higher outcome of everyday´s work is expected. It doesn´t mean that people can drop their pens everyday at four o-clock. Yes, Germans value work and career and it is a big part of our culture and self-esteem. But that does not mean that people don´t have their boundaries and take off to work singing and whistling like the seven dwarfs every day when there is another 14-hour-day ahead.
The picture of the hard-working German robot is another myth form a century long gone.
First, Doug Saunders take on how well Germany dealt with the financial crisis - especially compared to other European states. The article is a bit older, from August I think, I just only saw it yesterday.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/broken-europe/hope-germanys-secret-to-recovery/article1659177/
In a sense he is right about the one fact that the government managed to save a good amount of jobs in certain sectors of industry by simply paying a big share of the employees salaries. As the few examples shown say, people were happy that they could keep their jobs, even on a Kurzarbeit- a part-time basis. But here lies the first crucial point that Saunders forgot to mention: people were happy to keep their underpayed jobs because they knew they would not find a new one elsewhere. Especially all he blue-collars over fifty that had been with their company trough most of their working career. The situation for well-experienced workers over fifty on the German job-market is more or less hopeless and they all knew that.
The second point Saunders is not filling to put his finger on is the simple fact that none of these jobs is an investment into the future. As soon as the state will stop funding those jobs, they will vanish and with them what little hope the people on these jobs had. And none of these jobs will ever be a full-time employment again. So, the average worker deals with the fact that he or she can either be unemployed and on social welfare until retirement age or work for half the money and barely above the margin of subsistence for the next two decades.
The German production industry, especially the automotive sector, has been in trouble long before the financial crisis. Like in the United States of America, the inquiry on the market has been constantly declining. Saving those jobs is an act of good will for the single worker but also a show a Germany´s incapability to design a labor market fitting the demands of the 21st century. Hence, the government - and there was a big debate on the point of all these measures, let us keep this in mind, too - as invested highly into the past and not the slightest bit into the future.
And the 7% unemployment rate is a nice little illusion. If you take all the jobs like the above mentioned, where the state pays salaries in sectors that are nowhere the states responsibility, if you take all the 1-Euro-jobs provided by the national agency for employment where the jobholders still receive social welfare to survive, if you take all the jobs where people have to rely on the state in order to survive because their income is above the minimum income needed to exist, if you take all the internships, trainee-ships and voluntary services that academics with a PhD degree do on a regular basis, if you take all these jobs out of the statistics, Germany´s unemployment rate would hit 20 percent. That is the future perspective, unfortunately.
The second article, published yesterday, was actually a bit hilarious because of its clear black-and-white perspective. Dealing with current research on how Canadians are effected by increasing stress levels at work, the German "example" should show that Canadians are all whiny and don´t have the right attitude towards work - unlike the Germans.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/work-life-balance/part-4-harder-worker-no-life-just-act-more-like-the-germans/article1783415/
It is true, Germany has the 38.5 hour week. On paper. Most people work more and for less money, since extra-hours are only rarely paid. And especially in the private sector, somebody who is employed on a 38.5 basis costs less than somebody on a 50 hours week. Yes, there is such a thing as a very protected work environment with companies that have strong Trade Unions. Those are mostly non-profit organizations or old, well established companies. But the ideal conditions the authors points out is a memory from the fairy-tale-land that Germany maybe was in the 1970s, with full employment and a booming economy that gave the Trade Unions a big deal of liberty to ask for anything. Today, as the article above shows, people simply fear for their job and therefore except any condition. There is the many supermarket chains for example that don´t even allow their employees to form or join a union. Their is the many, many middle class companies with less than eight employees that are nowhere politically represented - unlike their bosses.
According to recent research, every third German faces depression, burn-out, allergies and other stress-related illnesses due to the rising pressure at work. A lot of people wish they could downsize and some actually do. Alternative living arrangements, sabbaticals, time off work become more and more common.
Yes, Germans are very industrious and efficient which means that a higher outcome of everyday´s work is expected. It doesn´t mean that people can drop their pens everyday at four o-clock. Yes, Germans value work and career and it is a big part of our culture and self-esteem. But that does not mean that people don´t have their boundaries and take off to work singing and whistling like the seven dwarfs every day when there is another 14-hour-day ahead.
The picture of the hard-working German robot is another myth form a century long gone.
Dienstag, 23. November 2010
Sarkozy vs. Berlusconi
Today I wonder who is more ridiculous and hilarious: Sarkozy or Berlusconi. One blamed journalists as pedophiles when he did not like their questions. The other one had a new and bigger penis put on a statue at an official building.
In times when democracy as a political institution faces a crisis of faith and trust in many countries men like Sarkozy and Berlusconi do even greater harm. Or is the fact that men like them have been voted in the first place more than a symptom of crisis but a symptom of decadence? How much damage can be done until it is irreversible?
In times when democracy as a political institution faces a crisis of faith and trust in many countries men like Sarkozy and Berlusconi do even greater harm. Or is the fact that men like them have been voted in the first place more than a symptom of crisis but a symptom of decadence? How much damage can be done until it is irreversible?
Montag, 8. November 2010
The "good, old"-Goebbels comparison - now even in BC
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-new-democrat-apologizes-for-nazi-comments/article1778395/
The good, old Goebbels comparison - a political opponent is or acts like Goebbels. Well, we have heard that in the past. I am just surprised that Goebbels made it as far as British Columbia, a place on Earth far away from Germany and its Nazi-past - not only in terms of geography. Don´t you really have nobody else to refer too?
German politicians like to do it once in a while. They speak about yellow stars on somebody´s chest and yes, Helmut Kohl, former Chancellor said something about Goebbels too. Mahmud Ahmadinedshad does it all the time, although one can never be too sure whether he thinks he is the new Hitler or the new victim of propaganda, persecution and all that. Nasrallah does it and a lot of Palestinians and some Jewish people and one can only ask: why are the Nazis so damn fascinating? Why can we not stop talking about them and referring to them and pointing out the fact that they might have done and achieved something good or masterful (like the German autobahn or a very thorough and undoubtedly very effective propaganda machinery)?
Leonard Krog was most likely a bit clueless about Goebbels and just going for the effect. To mention the name Goebbels gives you for sure some audience. But I am bit shocked about the comments that follow the article on globeandmail.com (see link above). He was not referring to the Holocaust, just to Goebbels´mastery of mass propaganda and hey, what is the big deal? I mean, he was good at that, right?
Well, let us just take this away from the Holocaust, let us only talk about the twelve years of Nazi rule in Germany. The propaganda machinery was combined with an equally effective system of "education". From day one in a child´s life, so the ultimate goal, the child should here nothing else than what we want it to hear: hatred against the "other", hatred and mistrust towards your neighbor and your own family, the rightfulness of oppression and extermination of those that were labeled as minor, the indoctrination of the child to make it a devout part of the collective. No freedom of thought or speech, no freedom to chose any other way, no freedom to decide whether you want to die for the country and the "Führer" or not. And to make sure that everybody follows the rules, even those who were not so impressed by Goebbels excellency in propaganda, a system of espionage was established that gave the one party that Goebbels belonged to the ultimate power. Yes, there was propaganda, but also oppression and fear and cruelty. And think about liberal politicians in BC whatever you want, but you have to do a great big deal to "earn the right" to be compared to Joseph Goebbels.
Tomorrow is the 9th of November, the anniversary of the Reichskristallnacht, indeed Joseph Goebbels "masterpiece". Can we really refer to Goebbels and not take the Holocaust into consideration. I don´t think you can separate the mass propagandist from the mass murderer. But what´s the big deal, huh?
The good, old Goebbels comparison - a political opponent is or acts like Goebbels. Well, we have heard that in the past. I am just surprised that Goebbels made it as far as British Columbia, a place on Earth far away from Germany and its Nazi-past - not only in terms of geography. Don´t you really have nobody else to refer too?
German politicians like to do it once in a while. They speak about yellow stars on somebody´s chest and yes, Helmut Kohl, former Chancellor said something about Goebbels too. Mahmud Ahmadinedshad does it all the time, although one can never be too sure whether he thinks he is the new Hitler or the new victim of propaganda, persecution and all that. Nasrallah does it and a lot of Palestinians and some Jewish people and one can only ask: why are the Nazis so damn fascinating? Why can we not stop talking about them and referring to them and pointing out the fact that they might have done and achieved something good or masterful (like the German autobahn or a very thorough and undoubtedly very effective propaganda machinery)?
Leonard Krog was most likely a bit clueless about Goebbels and just going for the effect. To mention the name Goebbels gives you for sure some audience. But I am bit shocked about the comments that follow the article on globeandmail.com (see link above). He was not referring to the Holocaust, just to Goebbels´mastery of mass propaganda and hey, what is the big deal? I mean, he was good at that, right?
Well, let us just take this away from the Holocaust, let us only talk about the twelve years of Nazi rule in Germany. The propaganda machinery was combined with an equally effective system of "education". From day one in a child´s life, so the ultimate goal, the child should here nothing else than what we want it to hear: hatred against the "other", hatred and mistrust towards your neighbor and your own family, the rightfulness of oppression and extermination of those that were labeled as minor, the indoctrination of the child to make it a devout part of the collective. No freedom of thought or speech, no freedom to chose any other way, no freedom to decide whether you want to die for the country and the "Führer" or not. And to make sure that everybody follows the rules, even those who were not so impressed by Goebbels excellency in propaganda, a system of espionage was established that gave the one party that Goebbels belonged to the ultimate power. Yes, there was propaganda, but also oppression and fear and cruelty. And think about liberal politicians in BC whatever you want, but you have to do a great big deal to "earn the right" to be compared to Joseph Goebbels.
Tomorrow is the 9th of November, the anniversary of the Reichskristallnacht, indeed Joseph Goebbels "masterpiece". Can we really refer to Goebbels and not take the Holocaust into consideration. I don´t think you can separate the mass propagandist from the mass murderer. But what´s the big deal, huh?
Dienstag, 2. November 2010
Teabags go Israel!
Neither about Canada nor Germany, but still a link I would like to share, since I have been thinking about the Tea Party a lot recently and it fits into my research project on the future of democracy in Canada, Germany, the USA and Israel.
I doubt that the Tea-Party-"Movement" will be to successful in Israel, although Israel can do movements. But Israel´s political landscape suffers greatly from the lack of new faces and new potential leaders much less a figurehead able to unify all protesters of all kinds in the "movement".
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/world/middleeast/02israel.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast
I doubt that the Tea-Party-"Movement" will be to successful in Israel, although Israel can do movements. But Israel´s political landscape suffers greatly from the lack of new faces and new potential leaders much less a figurehead able to unify all protesters of all kinds in the "movement".
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/world/middleeast/02israel.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast
Politik und Glamour?
Heute nur ein Link zu meinem Beitrag auf meinem blog auf vorwärts.de zur Frage, wie man junge Menschen, aber besonders junge Frauen wieder mehr für Politik interessieren kann. Darf Politik sexy sein?
http://www.vorwaerts.de/artikel/macht-medien-mweidlichkeit?page=0%2C1
Today just a link to one of my articles on vorwärts.de on the question how we can interest young people, especially women for taking an active role in politics. Can politics be sexy? In German only
http://www.vorwaerts.de/artikel/macht-medien-mweidlichkeit?page=0%2C1
Today just a link to one of my articles on vorwärts.de on the question how we can interest young people, especially women for taking an active role in politics. Can politics be sexy? In German only
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)