http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/interview-mit-joachim-gauck-mutige-politiker-ziehe-ich-vor-1.1006223
Gehört eigentlich nur bedingt hierher, aber ich finde, dieses Interview mit Herrn Gauck kann man ruhig mal lesen. Gauck beanstandet darin die Mutlosigkeit von Politikern/innen, Dinge einfach mal zu tun und etwas zu wagen.
For those who can read German. Joachim Gauck, former candidate for the German Presidency, civil rights activist and priest, had this interview with one of Germany´s big daily newspapers. It does not really belong here, but there is some true points that Canadian readers would agree on as much as German readers. Gauck explicitly critizises politicians for their lack in courage to make bigger changes in the system and to promote fundamental reforms even if this would mean that they might not be re-elected the next time. I know that a lot of people out their wish for politicians to be more visionary and bolder. Maybe all of us should say it more often.
I will translate the interview soon.
Donnerstag, 30. September 2010
Dienstag, 28. September 2010
Great Britannia, Britannia rule the world
A comment on the article in "Globe and Mail" on the inauguration plans of Governor-General to be, David Johnston
Check out this Globe and Mail article "New governor-general plans ‘highly symbolic’ swearing in" at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/new-governor-general-plans-highly-symbolic-swearing-in/article1728399/?service=email&utm_source=Shared+Article+Sent+to+User&utm_medium=E-mail%3A+Newsletters+%2F+E-Blasts+%2F+etc.&utm_content=1728399&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links.
The Governor General has a merely representative function, he nevertheless has the power to form governments (the last Governor General, Michaelle Jean, supported Stephen Harper´s minority government by preventing a liberal-NDP coalition) signs new laws and has the power to support or contradict the Prime Minister´s politics. The nomination of David Johnston caused rumors and criticism that the Governor General will be less neutral but more openly supportive of the Prime Minister´s equally often criticized style of governing. Additionally, his support for the cause of Canada´s war veterans is not in every Canadian´s favor and i another sign that he will interpret his role more conservatively.
After former General Governor Michaelle Jean his nomination indeed seems to be some sort of role-back in good old times. Users on www.globeandmail.ca describe him as "angry white old man". Whether he is angry or not only people who have met him might be able to decide, whereas he is, quite obviously an old white man. he is the first General Governor in a few years, yes decades that has not come from a minority background and is not a woman. Well, one can say, still nothing the matter with nominating a white man for the change. In a functioning democracy like Canada is one, he should be able and willing to represent the rest of the country´s population as well. That he is an old man might justify, with all due respect, a bit more concern. Michaelle Jean has represented a modern approach to politics and life, whether it was by being a role-model with her own lifestyle, her active agenda to empower young women, especially from migration backgrounds or her emotional and touching way of speaking and leading, that brought people a bit closer to that far-a-way political scene in Ottawa. Old man Johnston has to prove that he can do likewise. His own arrangement of the inaugural ceremony might lead to the assumption that he thinks he is already a tiny bit to big for his new office. The office itself has been questioned often enough in the past, especially by younger and more open-minded Canadians who see it as an anachronistic legacy from the times when monarchy ruled the world. The same voices know speak up against his addition of new and personal twists to the swearing-in-ceremony, seeing it as a sign of arrogance and overestimation of one´s own person. Maybe a bit more modesty would have been a better start, stick through the ceremony the way it is, one wants to say. It would have enhanced people´s acceptance of Canada´s unique constitutional extra in times when people sometimes have a hard time liking politicians and democracy anyway.
Die gleichen Ziele, die gleichen Ambitionen?
Die gleichen Ziele, die gleichen Ambitionen? Warum es eigentlich recht egal ist, ob Kanada oder Deutschland bei der Wahl im Oktober einen Sitz im Sicherheitsrat erhalten
Kanada und Deutschland haben im internationalen System mittlerweile einen vergleichbaren Status. Deutschland hat als traditionelle europäische Mittelmacht wieder erheblichen Einfluss auf der internationalen Bühne, nicht zuletzt auch deshalb, weil Berlin in den letzten zhen Jahren von mehreren Seiten zu einer stärkeren internationalen Präsenz gedrängt wurde. Öhnliches gilt auch für den nördlichen Nachbarn der USA und Kanada nutzte die Phase schwächer werdenden us-amerikanischer Macht zur Konsolidierung der eigenen Position. Beide Länder haben derzeit konservative Regierungen, wobei zumindest im Falle Kanadas eine grundsätzlich andere Außenpolitik auch bei einem Regierungswechsel nicht unbedingt zu erwarten steht. Sowohl Ottawa als auch Berlin sind mittlerweile über ihre traditionelle Rolle als Vermittler und Mittelgeber hinausgewachsen und mit ihren Streitkräften an zahlreichen internationalen UN-, aber auch NATO-Einsätzen beteiligt. Und doch, beide Seiten nehmen diese Veränderung nur zögerlich an, haben ihre neue Rolle in der internationalen balance of power scheinbar noch nicht recht gefunden, was auch daran liegen mag, dass die jeweilige Bevölkerung beider Länder bei der Frage nach Auslandsinterventionen gespalten sind. Außeneinsätze können in beiden Ländern durchaus Einfluss auf den Ausgang von Wahlen nehmen, wie in Deutschland zuletzt während dem Bundestagswahlkampf 2002 geschehen.
Genau diese gespaltene Position zwischen Entwicklungshelfer und Militärmacht dürfte auch in beiden Fällen die kommende Ratsperiode prägen. Der Erfinder der „responsibility to protect“, Kanada hat dabei auf der Ebene der internationalen Debatte um Sinn und Zweck von Peace-keeping-missions (und damit auch der Vereinten Nationen als Institution) ein deutlich höheres Ansehen als Deutschland. Deutschland ist aber diplomatisch einflussreicher, vor allem in Russland und China, den beiden oft schwierigen Veto-Mächten im Sicherheitsrat, aber auch als Vermittler und Partner im Nahen Osten – nach dem absehbaren Scheitern der derzeitigen Friedensgespräche auch zukünftig leider ein Dauerthema.
Paul Heinbecker, ehemaliger kanadischer Botschafter bei der UN, formuliert Kanadas Agenda als ernst zunehmender global player. Im Vordergrund der Ratsperiode sollten Menschenrechte und Demokratie, Armutsbekämpfung und Abrüstung stehen. So fordert er von Stephen Harpers Regierung besonders den Kampf für die Verbesserung von Frauen- und Kindergesundheit weltweit zu intensivieren. Eine thematisch andere Agenda dürfte aber auch von einem Ratsmitglied Deutschland nicht zu erwarten sein. Deutschland hingegen hat signalisiert, ein Gegengewicht zur Interessenpolitik der ständigen Mitglieder setzen zu wollen. Der auch in der konservativ-liberalen Regierung vorhandene Skeptizismus gegenüber den USA dürfte dabei eine Linie fortsetzen helfen, die Deutschland schon in seiner letzten Wahlperiode 2004/05 vertreten hat. Damals hatte die rot-grüne Bundesregierung den Irak-Krieg der USA auch im Sicherheitsrat zu verhindern versucht, nachdem man bereits signalisiert hatte, seinerseits keinerlei Truppen zru Verfügung zu stellen. Deutschland ist auch eines der größten Geberländer und hofft daher zu Recht auf entsprechende Berücksichtigung.
In Deutschland ist die Sicherheitssitzfrage traditionell umstritten. So wünscht sich eine Seite seit längerem einen festen, ständigen Sitz im Sicherheitsrat, wobei diese Forderung mit der zunehmenden Einigung Europas in der letzten Dekade etwas in den Hintergrund gerückt ist. Dies spiegelt auch die Gegenstimmen gegen einen solchen Status, denn schon immer haben besorgte Stimmen geäußert, dass drei ständige Sitze für europäische Staaten einer gerechten Verteilung von Macht in der Welt entgegenstünden. Genau diese Stimmen fordern heute denn auch oft die vollständige Reform des Systems, nach der die europöischen Länder künftig nur mit einem EU-Sitz vertreten sein soll, ein Gedanke, der in London und Paris nicht auf allzu große Gegenliebe stößt.
Und manche Stimmen scheuen auch die Verantwortung, jene, die Berlin lieber zurückhaltender in der internationalen Politik sehen wollen. Die internationalen Einsätze vom Kosovo über Afghanistan bis in den Libanon sind nicht unumstritten, weder in der Bevölkerung, noch der Politik. Das die Regierungskoalition nun die Abschaffung der Wehrpflicht beschlossen hat, deutet aber auch an, die zukünftige Arme professioneller und einsatzfähiger gestalten zu wollen. Die Abschaffung verlief in der Öffentlichkeit relativ unkommentiert, vielen scheint nicht klar zu sein, dass dies für die Zukunft wohl eher eine aktivere militärische Rolle Deutschlands mit sich bringen wird.
Für die UN und den Sicherheitsrat wird es kaum einen Unterschied machen, ob Ottawa oder Berlin in den nächsten zwei Jahren erhöhten Einfluss erlangen. Beide haben ein Interesse, die bisherigen Veto-Mächte zu behindern und die unterrepräsentierten Staaten der Zweiten und Dritten Welt stärker in die Vereinten Nationen einzubinden. Beide Staaten sind für eine auf Entwicklung ausgerichtete Politik bekannt, Kriegseinsätze gelten hier wie dort als letztes Übel. Es bleibt also entspannt abzuwarten, wer von den beiden das Rennen machen wird. Sorgen muss man sich keine machen.
Kanada und Deutschland haben im internationalen System mittlerweile einen vergleichbaren Status. Deutschland hat als traditionelle europäische Mittelmacht wieder erheblichen Einfluss auf der internationalen Bühne, nicht zuletzt auch deshalb, weil Berlin in den letzten zhen Jahren von mehreren Seiten zu einer stärkeren internationalen Präsenz gedrängt wurde. Öhnliches gilt auch für den nördlichen Nachbarn der USA und Kanada nutzte die Phase schwächer werdenden us-amerikanischer Macht zur Konsolidierung der eigenen Position. Beide Länder haben derzeit konservative Regierungen, wobei zumindest im Falle Kanadas eine grundsätzlich andere Außenpolitik auch bei einem Regierungswechsel nicht unbedingt zu erwarten steht. Sowohl Ottawa als auch Berlin sind mittlerweile über ihre traditionelle Rolle als Vermittler und Mittelgeber hinausgewachsen und mit ihren Streitkräften an zahlreichen internationalen UN-, aber auch NATO-Einsätzen beteiligt. Und doch, beide Seiten nehmen diese Veränderung nur zögerlich an, haben ihre neue Rolle in der internationalen balance of power scheinbar noch nicht recht gefunden, was auch daran liegen mag, dass die jeweilige Bevölkerung beider Länder bei der Frage nach Auslandsinterventionen gespalten sind. Außeneinsätze können in beiden Ländern durchaus Einfluss auf den Ausgang von Wahlen nehmen, wie in Deutschland zuletzt während dem Bundestagswahlkampf 2002 geschehen.
Genau diese gespaltene Position zwischen Entwicklungshelfer und Militärmacht dürfte auch in beiden Fällen die kommende Ratsperiode prägen. Der Erfinder der „responsibility to protect“, Kanada hat dabei auf der Ebene der internationalen Debatte um Sinn und Zweck von Peace-keeping-missions (und damit auch der Vereinten Nationen als Institution) ein deutlich höheres Ansehen als Deutschland. Deutschland ist aber diplomatisch einflussreicher, vor allem in Russland und China, den beiden oft schwierigen Veto-Mächten im Sicherheitsrat, aber auch als Vermittler und Partner im Nahen Osten – nach dem absehbaren Scheitern der derzeitigen Friedensgespräche auch zukünftig leider ein Dauerthema.
Paul Heinbecker, ehemaliger kanadischer Botschafter bei der UN, formuliert Kanadas Agenda als ernst zunehmender global player. Im Vordergrund der Ratsperiode sollten Menschenrechte und Demokratie, Armutsbekämpfung und Abrüstung stehen. So fordert er von Stephen Harpers Regierung besonders den Kampf für die Verbesserung von Frauen- und Kindergesundheit weltweit zu intensivieren. Eine thematisch andere Agenda dürfte aber auch von einem Ratsmitglied Deutschland nicht zu erwarten sein. Deutschland hingegen hat signalisiert, ein Gegengewicht zur Interessenpolitik der ständigen Mitglieder setzen zu wollen. Der auch in der konservativ-liberalen Regierung vorhandene Skeptizismus gegenüber den USA dürfte dabei eine Linie fortsetzen helfen, die Deutschland schon in seiner letzten Wahlperiode 2004/05 vertreten hat. Damals hatte die rot-grüne Bundesregierung den Irak-Krieg der USA auch im Sicherheitsrat zu verhindern versucht, nachdem man bereits signalisiert hatte, seinerseits keinerlei Truppen zru Verfügung zu stellen. Deutschland ist auch eines der größten Geberländer und hofft daher zu Recht auf entsprechende Berücksichtigung.
In Deutschland ist die Sicherheitssitzfrage traditionell umstritten. So wünscht sich eine Seite seit längerem einen festen, ständigen Sitz im Sicherheitsrat, wobei diese Forderung mit der zunehmenden Einigung Europas in der letzten Dekade etwas in den Hintergrund gerückt ist. Dies spiegelt auch die Gegenstimmen gegen einen solchen Status, denn schon immer haben besorgte Stimmen geäußert, dass drei ständige Sitze für europäische Staaten einer gerechten Verteilung von Macht in der Welt entgegenstünden. Genau diese Stimmen fordern heute denn auch oft die vollständige Reform des Systems, nach der die europöischen Länder künftig nur mit einem EU-Sitz vertreten sein soll, ein Gedanke, der in London und Paris nicht auf allzu große Gegenliebe stößt.
Und manche Stimmen scheuen auch die Verantwortung, jene, die Berlin lieber zurückhaltender in der internationalen Politik sehen wollen. Die internationalen Einsätze vom Kosovo über Afghanistan bis in den Libanon sind nicht unumstritten, weder in der Bevölkerung, noch der Politik. Das die Regierungskoalition nun die Abschaffung der Wehrpflicht beschlossen hat, deutet aber auch an, die zukünftige Arme professioneller und einsatzfähiger gestalten zu wollen. Die Abschaffung verlief in der Öffentlichkeit relativ unkommentiert, vielen scheint nicht klar zu sein, dass dies für die Zukunft wohl eher eine aktivere militärische Rolle Deutschlands mit sich bringen wird.
Für die UN und den Sicherheitsrat wird es kaum einen Unterschied machen, ob Ottawa oder Berlin in den nächsten zwei Jahren erhöhten Einfluss erlangen. Beide haben ein Interesse, die bisherigen Veto-Mächte zu behindern und die unterrepräsentierten Staaten der Zweiten und Dritten Welt stärker in die Vereinten Nationen einzubinden. Beide Staaten sind für eine auf Entwicklung ausgerichtete Politik bekannt, Kriegseinsätze gelten hier wie dort als letztes Übel. Es bleibt also entspannt abzuwarten, wer von den beiden das Rennen machen wird. Sorgen muss man sich keine machen.
Montag, 28. Juni 2010
When soccer turns politics
Canadians will understand that soccer is more than just a game. Every hockey game between a Canadian and an US-American team is always somewhat political, or to be better said, a diplomatic issue. The lasting differences between the two countries, occasionally boosted by the mutual dislike of their people, make hockey a show of national pride. Soccer, at least in Europe, isn´t any different.
Yesterday´s game between England and Germany is one of the most classic duels in soccer history and it has everything that a good match would need to become an awesome event for the fans. It has the emotion, the political dimension and even more important, it has the drama! The same could be said about a game between Germany and the Netherlands or Germany and Poland.
Two words are enough to describe the core of the emotions at a Germany vs. England match: “Wembley” and “Second World War”. Whereas Germany has stable and friendly relationships with its neighbour states today, the past is not settled between the British and the German people. British still call the Germans “Nazis” and even worse, they don´t expect them to be anything else. It is not a bad joke or famous British black humour but unfortunately an ongoing stigma that is passed from one generation on to the next. Yesterday every TV spectator could see English fans in Second World War uniforms. Sadly enough, those men were barely older than twenty. The World War, one would think, has nothing to do with their world. Both countries´ yellow press media make it only worse. The standard vocabulary used in headlines on game-day could be right out of a 1944 newspaper. The battle royal.
Still, the situation has somewhat changed during the last, say then years. There are too many young Germans nowadays that oppose the war-zone-talk in the yellow press prior to games like that. Whether this is because Germany´s society has really developed a lot or because Germans want to overcome the past so much is a question not easy to answer. Is Germany a modern nation in the 21st century or is the soccer-party nation from 2006 just another make-over for a nation that still desperately searches for a source for new national self-esteem. Soccer is just one possible tool for achieving the latter because next to the many thinks soccer is, foremost it is about national pride.
2006 Germany has celebrated the World Championships utterly peacefully and with fans all over the world. Still, already in 2006 and even more so today, critical voices claim that the massive pride, the multitude of flags, the new lust in singing the national anthem is nothing more than a revival of an over-nationalistic past. Those who receive their pride from their nationality and thus from distinguishing themselves from others can finally show off that new pride again with their beloved national symbols 2006 it seemed that Germany had waited decades to dust off the good old flags and give them a good waving. Where are flags so important, why are people so obsessed about them? Why do people wait forty years bring them out and the whole atmosphere in a country changes from bad to better just because of three stripes in red, gold and black? Bystanders in Germany talk about the party nation on the edge. The climate seems to be a little too forced, a little too aggressive to be really enjoyable. Germany must win, Germany needs a boost in self-esteem.
There might be a point. Germany has been through a lot in the past few years: a rough economic situation that was only fuelled by the global economic crisis combines with the essential depressive nature of the German people. Depression and Angst, there are German things, a core of our personality. It is cynical that Germany´s national goal keeper as a consequence of his severe depression committed suicide last year. Soccer is more than a game but it is more than politics too. It is an outlet, a catharsis for a nation´s emotional set. Germany needs to win, because Germany really needs something that could be enjoyed, something that is just light and funny. Once in a while, people might think, that if the ever calm and reserved Germans could let out some of the emotions they are showing at a soccer tournament, a lot would have been different. People want to be playful. We always admire our more care-free and bubbly neighbours in the south, yet we know that we can never be that way. Only at carnival and while watching soccer we can behave like we want.
And isn´t soccer all about emotions, all about the drama? Today was a hard day for the English soccer, not only because they lost an important game and were sent back home, no because a national trauma was relived and refunded for a new generation. England was in Wembley again, denied an equalizer. Needless to say, and maybe a biased opinion, that Germany would have won anyway. Maybe it was just the karma, the World War uniforms that should go where they belong: to a museum, to teach the upcoming generations about what it means when millions have to suffer because of an inferiority complex that one nation amongst them has harboured for too long.
It was good to see the young and wonderfully talented German team seem to be undisturbed the weight of the past that lasted on yesterday´s game. Miroslav Klose and Lukas Podolski have their origins in Poland, Mesut Özil represents the big Turkish community in a state that has long hit the road to a multi-cultural society. Sami Khedira was born in Germany, but comes from an Arabic family, Cacau is Brazilian-born. It is not their past after all. They were in the stadium to play soccer and they did some wonderful soccer. It was a first step into a new century and maybe, ob day, soccer will just be a very important game. As a German, it was refreshing to see the game on Canadian TV. The commentator focused on the game played, the soccer shown and not at all on the historic burden between the opponents. Enjoyable!
Yesterday´s game between England and Germany is one of the most classic duels in soccer history and it has everything that a good match would need to become an awesome event for the fans. It has the emotion, the political dimension and even more important, it has the drama! The same could be said about a game between Germany and the Netherlands or Germany and Poland.
Two words are enough to describe the core of the emotions at a Germany vs. England match: “Wembley” and “Second World War”. Whereas Germany has stable and friendly relationships with its neighbour states today, the past is not settled between the British and the German people. British still call the Germans “Nazis” and even worse, they don´t expect them to be anything else. It is not a bad joke or famous British black humour but unfortunately an ongoing stigma that is passed from one generation on to the next. Yesterday every TV spectator could see English fans in Second World War uniforms. Sadly enough, those men were barely older than twenty. The World War, one would think, has nothing to do with their world. Both countries´ yellow press media make it only worse. The standard vocabulary used in headlines on game-day could be right out of a 1944 newspaper. The battle royal.
Still, the situation has somewhat changed during the last, say then years. There are too many young Germans nowadays that oppose the war-zone-talk in the yellow press prior to games like that. Whether this is because Germany´s society has really developed a lot or because Germans want to overcome the past so much is a question not easy to answer. Is Germany a modern nation in the 21st century or is the soccer-party nation from 2006 just another make-over for a nation that still desperately searches for a source for new national self-esteem. Soccer is just one possible tool for achieving the latter because next to the many thinks soccer is, foremost it is about national pride.
2006 Germany has celebrated the World Championships utterly peacefully and with fans all over the world. Still, already in 2006 and even more so today, critical voices claim that the massive pride, the multitude of flags, the new lust in singing the national anthem is nothing more than a revival of an over-nationalistic past. Those who receive their pride from their nationality and thus from distinguishing themselves from others can finally show off that new pride again with their beloved national symbols 2006 it seemed that Germany had waited decades to dust off the good old flags and give them a good waving. Where are flags so important, why are people so obsessed about them? Why do people wait forty years bring them out and the whole atmosphere in a country changes from bad to better just because of three stripes in red, gold and black? Bystanders in Germany talk about the party nation on the edge. The climate seems to be a little too forced, a little too aggressive to be really enjoyable. Germany must win, Germany needs a boost in self-esteem.
There might be a point. Germany has been through a lot in the past few years: a rough economic situation that was only fuelled by the global economic crisis combines with the essential depressive nature of the German people. Depression and Angst, there are German things, a core of our personality. It is cynical that Germany´s national goal keeper as a consequence of his severe depression committed suicide last year. Soccer is more than a game but it is more than politics too. It is an outlet, a catharsis for a nation´s emotional set. Germany needs to win, because Germany really needs something that could be enjoyed, something that is just light and funny. Once in a while, people might think, that if the ever calm and reserved Germans could let out some of the emotions they are showing at a soccer tournament, a lot would have been different. People want to be playful. We always admire our more care-free and bubbly neighbours in the south, yet we know that we can never be that way. Only at carnival and while watching soccer we can behave like we want.
And isn´t soccer all about emotions, all about the drama? Today was a hard day for the English soccer, not only because they lost an important game and were sent back home, no because a national trauma was relived and refunded for a new generation. England was in Wembley again, denied an equalizer. Needless to say, and maybe a biased opinion, that Germany would have won anyway. Maybe it was just the karma, the World War uniforms that should go where they belong: to a museum, to teach the upcoming generations about what it means when millions have to suffer because of an inferiority complex that one nation amongst them has harboured for too long.
It was good to see the young and wonderfully talented German team seem to be undisturbed the weight of the past that lasted on yesterday´s game. Miroslav Klose and Lukas Podolski have their origins in Poland, Mesut Özil represents the big Turkish community in a state that has long hit the road to a multi-cultural society. Sami Khedira was born in Germany, but comes from an Arabic family, Cacau is Brazilian-born. It is not their past after all. They were in the stadium to play soccer and they did some wonderful soccer. It was a first step into a new century and maybe, ob day, soccer will just be a very important game. As a German, it was refreshing to see the game on Canadian TV. The commentator focused on the game played, the soccer shown and not at all on the historic burden between the opponents. Enjoyable!
Freitag, 25. Juni 2010
POLITICAL PARTIES in comparison
Subtle "hints of change" in the German liberal party
If you really want to say it that way then you could blame the German liberals for being political dinosaurs - not because they are as heavy and as strong but because they seem to be lacking contemporary survival skills or, to come back to political terminology: the right answers after the economic crisis in the last year.
That they were actually voted into parliament with the best result ever did surprise a few if not many people in Germany. Knowing the difficult political situation Germany currently faces and the new, massive voter flotation in between parties, which were caused by the lessening strength of the two leading parties, the conservative CDU and the social-democratic SPD their success in the last election is easily explainable: people just seemed to be having no other options. It was not their program that laid the foundation for their victory, nor their campaign but the tremendous loss of the voters´ faith and trust that the others parties experienced. The CDU lost nearly a third, the SPD half of their voters during the last eight years!
The German liberal party FDP has a long history, and most of the time it has been a story of success and importance for the development of the German society and the political system. Ever since 1945 the party consisted mainly of two strong factions. The so-called social-liberals had an emphasis on human right and peoples´ rights. Liberalism in their understanding means less control of the state both over the people and the economy. The keyword for their agenda is "freedom" which contains the idea of the free and self-responsible citizen as well as the idea of a free market economy. However, the social-liberals always believed in a strong social welfare system and in the responsibility for the weaker in the society as well. This faction had is high-time in the Seventies and early Eighties, when they formed a coalition with the social-democratic party.
The other faction has been the stronger and more influential one during the last ten years. They were - and still are - Germany´s true neo-liberalists and, according to the world-wide atmosphere, they changed their ideology and program. The keyword again was "freedom", but freedom in the sense of an unhindered global economy, the privatization of crucial social institutions like the health system, a tax reduction for the high-income earners while simultaneously a reduction of the social welfare was advised. The modern liberal party of Germany, the FDP, is what scientists call a Klientelpartei, a client´s party that makes politics for the well-being of a certain part of the society even if this might be carried out on the shoulders of the rest.
When the global economic system started to collapse and with this the neo-liberal ideology proved to be a failure the German liberals seem to be at a dead-end. Everybody expected them to be the main looser of the upcoming elections since their ideology had proved to be devastating. Slight alterations in the campaign were already noticeable. In one big interview last fall, the chairman of the liberal party, nowadays minister of foreign affairs, Guido Westerwelle, already rowed back a little when saying that he and his party had always believed in the state´s responsibility to control the economy. In the end, even this would have not been necessary. Despite the collapse of the world-wide system, despite the fact, that the German tax-payer indirectly had to pay for the mistakes of the speculators, despite the fact that the Liberals didn´t change their agenda while the weak and poor were hit by the economic crisis first, on Election Day the voters gifted the liberals with their best results ever.
In the end one is always smarter. This old German proves its point again. After only slightly more than six months in government, the FDP has lost most of their voters and faces a long term low with an approximately eight percent loss of support in less than a year. A little late, but not too late, people on both sides of the fence seem to finally wake up. During the last regional elections many voters returned to the conservative and social-democratic party, showing once again that the surprising support for the liberals was more a result of the lack of prospects then real acceptance of the liberal´s political agenda. And inside the party, a new generation is ready to lead the party in the times after the end of ordoliberalism. The chairman, Gudio Westerwelle, without an alternative in the last ten years, is constantly losing the faith of his party. A few first tentative voice already mentioned that it might be a good idea if there would be a change on the top. Westerwelle still has the support of some strong people in the background, but all of them just the political grandseigneurs from the Eighties. The younger generation however whistles some wind of change. Social-liberalism, they whisper, was not a bad idea after all.
If you really want to say it that way then you could blame the German liberals for being political dinosaurs - not because they are as heavy and as strong but because they seem to be lacking contemporary survival skills or, to come back to political terminology: the right answers after the economic crisis in the last year.
That they were actually voted into parliament with the best result ever did surprise a few if not many people in Germany. Knowing the difficult political situation Germany currently faces and the new, massive voter flotation in between parties, which were caused by the lessening strength of the two leading parties, the conservative CDU and the social-democratic SPD their success in the last election is easily explainable: people just seemed to be having no other options. It was not their program that laid the foundation for their victory, nor their campaign but the tremendous loss of the voters´ faith and trust that the others parties experienced. The CDU lost nearly a third, the SPD half of their voters during the last eight years!
The German liberal party FDP has a long history, and most of the time it has been a story of success and importance for the development of the German society and the political system. Ever since 1945 the party consisted mainly of two strong factions. The so-called social-liberals had an emphasis on human right and peoples´ rights. Liberalism in their understanding means less control of the state both over the people and the economy. The keyword for their agenda is "freedom" which contains the idea of the free and self-responsible citizen as well as the idea of a free market economy. However, the social-liberals always believed in a strong social welfare system and in the responsibility for the weaker in the society as well. This faction had is high-time in the Seventies and early Eighties, when they formed a coalition with the social-democratic party.
The other faction has been the stronger and more influential one during the last ten years. They were - and still are - Germany´s true neo-liberalists and, according to the world-wide atmosphere, they changed their ideology and program. The keyword again was "freedom", but freedom in the sense of an unhindered global economy, the privatization of crucial social institutions like the health system, a tax reduction for the high-income earners while simultaneously a reduction of the social welfare was advised. The modern liberal party of Germany, the FDP, is what scientists call a Klientelpartei, a client´s party that makes politics for the well-being of a certain part of the society even if this might be carried out on the shoulders of the rest.
When the global economic system started to collapse and with this the neo-liberal ideology proved to be a failure the German liberals seem to be at a dead-end. Everybody expected them to be the main looser of the upcoming elections since their ideology had proved to be devastating. Slight alterations in the campaign were already noticeable. In one big interview last fall, the chairman of the liberal party, nowadays minister of foreign affairs, Guido Westerwelle, already rowed back a little when saying that he and his party had always believed in the state´s responsibility to control the economy. In the end, even this would have not been necessary. Despite the collapse of the world-wide system, despite the fact, that the German tax-payer indirectly had to pay for the mistakes of the speculators, despite the fact that the Liberals didn´t change their agenda while the weak and poor were hit by the economic crisis first, on Election Day the voters gifted the liberals with their best results ever.
In the end one is always smarter. This old German proves its point again. After only slightly more than six months in government, the FDP has lost most of their voters and faces a long term low with an approximately eight percent loss of support in less than a year. A little late, but not too late, people on both sides of the fence seem to finally wake up. During the last regional elections many voters returned to the conservative and social-democratic party, showing once again that the surprising support for the liberals was more a result of the lack of prospects then real acceptance of the liberal´s political agenda. And inside the party, a new generation is ready to lead the party in the times after the end of ordoliberalism. The chairman, Gudio Westerwelle, without an alternative in the last ten years, is constantly losing the faith of his party. A few first tentative voice already mentioned that it might be a good idea if there would be a change on the top. Westerwelle still has the support of some strong people in the background, but all of them just the political grandseigneurs from the Eighties. The younger generation however whistles some wind of change. Social-liberalism, they whisper, was not a bad idea after all.
Donnerstag, 29. April 2010
Other voices
Topic: Scandal in the Catholic Church
Source: Süddeutsche Zeitung
Every forth German thinks about leaving the church a recent poll says
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/196/509329/text/
Source: Süddeutsche Zeitung
Every forth German thinks about leaving the church a recent poll says
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/196/509329/text/
Donnerstag, 1. April 2010
Other voices
Topic: Scandal in the Catholic Church
Source: Süddeutsche Zeitung
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/thema/Walter_Mixa
Walter Mixa, Bishop of Augsburg, belongs to the ultra-conservative faction of German Catholics. He is now accused of physical abuse of children in an orphanage during the Eighties.
For German-speakers in Canada....
Source: Süddeutsche Zeitung
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/thema/Walter_Mixa
Walter Mixa, Bishop of Augsburg, belongs to the ultra-conservative faction of German Catholics. He is now accused of physical abuse of children in an orphanage during the Eighties.
For German-speakers in Canada....
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)