| Germany Today | To understand Germany's present political situation we have to look back over the years: When the Social Democrats along with the Greens won the federal elections in 1998 it was not so much because the opposition was so convincingly better than the government of Helmut Kohl, but people were fed up with 16 years of the Kohl regime. In his final years the long-time Chancellor had become more like a Buddha, not only in size and appearance, but also in his way of governing. | |
| There's a famous German term for this, Kohl coined it himself. It's called aussitzen. Now, I guess even those of you who learned German at school might not know this verb. I wonder if it is translatable. Literally it means to sit something out. It was Kohl's famous way of dealing with problems: Sit still as long as the problem is virulent and wait until it has disappeared. | |
| I must admit that in many cases he was successful. Many scandals came and went – Kohl wasn't bothered. "Let the dogs bark while the camel caravan moves on", Kohl used to say to his media critics. He stuck to his mates whatever they did - knowing very well that this would make them more dependent on him. Kohl wanted absolute loyalty. Those who gave it to him took part in his power play. Those who failed - and they need fail only once - were out. | |
| Many of his very earlier supporters were left out in the desert:
Heiner Geissler, secretary general of the CDU1 and one of the masterminds behind electoral campaigns in the 70s and 80s, who became a critic of Kohl's way of governing in the 90s
Kurt Biedenkopf, also a former secretary general who disagreed with Kohl on economic topics who fell in disgrace, but became in 1990 the first freely elected Premier (Ministerpräsident) of Saxony in East Germany
Lothar Späth, Premier of Baden-Württemberg, who in 1988 was behind a palace revolt in Kohl's CDU, but who in the decisive moment didn't have the courage to stand as a candidate against Kohl as party president.
| 1 The Christian Democratic Union, Helmut Kohl's party. In Bavaria, there is an equivalent party called the Christian Social Union (CSU). |
| These are only three major examples that you may know. Kohl's very secretive ways of governing culminated in the money laundering scandal that was made public in 1999.
| |
| Sixteen years in power made Kohl feel invincible but his way of governing ultimately resulted in people voting for the opposition parties. After 26 years the SPD2 got more seats in the Bundestag than the CDU/CSU. In the 1998 election campaign Schröder had promised to create jobs and to bring the unemployment rate – which was nearly 5 million people in 1998 - "below 3.5 million". | 2 German President Gerhard Schröder belongs to the Social Democratic Party, which is known by the German acronym SPD. |
| This promise has cost Schröder dearly. Not only did he fail to create enough jobs to put 1.5 million people into work, but after a short honeymoon the unemployment rate rose above 5 million. And it has remained there, falling a little bit below 5 million in summer and rising above this mark in winter. |
| Schröder's way of dealing with problems is the opposite of Kohl's Aussitzen. Schröder jumps from one solution to the other - depending to whom he is lending his ear. Two examples easily demonstrate this jumpiness. | |
| When in 2000 the IT industry complained about the shortage of skilled workers Schröder fell head over heals on their idea of a German "Green Card". This English - or rather US-American - term was used by everyone in Germany. 20,000 and later 30,000 Green Cards would be issued to skilled IT experts from almost anywhere . . . . India, Malaysia, and also Romania, the Czech Republic and Slovakia to fill the gaps in Germany. The trade unions claimed that among the 5 million unemployed people there would surely be enough potential candidates to fill the vacancies or to be trained to do so. | |
| The industry declined. Schröder - and he did give the impression he did it himself - issued the Green Cards, although the Christian Democratic opposition styled the famous election slogan: Kinder statt Inder (children instead of Indians, which meant: make more children and stop greying Germany instead of letting more migrants into the country). There were never 30,000 new immigrants - at least not in the IT section - because the Green Card had typical German mistakes: The Green Cards were limited to a working period of five years. After that the specialists would be forced to leave the country. No families would be welcome either. The very first specialist, an Indonesian who had studied computer science in Aachen, who spoke perfect German, gave back the Green Card three years later and went to the USA. Meanwhile when the IT boom was over, many Green Card holders lost their jobs and ended up in the unemployment statistics. | |
| The second example is also an industrial one. The EU directive on old car recycling drafted in 2001 was more or less the one the Green Party coalition partner of Schröder had proposed. Jürgen Trittin, Minister for the Environment was literally on his way to Brussels to give his agreement to the EU directive when he was called back by Schröder. The Chancellor ordered Trittin to oppose the directive - the only EU country to do so. Volkswagon, the main car producer not only in Germany, but also the main employer in Schröder's home state Lower Saxony, didn't like the directive. And Schröder has always followed the wishes of VW. There's a joke about this relationship. Whenever Schröder visits another country he pays a visit to the local VW factory. It is said that he only visits countries with a VW production line. I wonder whether he will ever visit Australia. Do you have a Volkswagen plant here? | |
| Schröder is proud of not being an intellectual. He was elected president of the Young Socialists in the early 70s and entered the Bundestag on the coat-tail of Willy Brandt's popularity in 1972. In 1990 he won the state elections in Lower Saxony after the CDU ruled it for 14 years. As Premier he became a major player in the SPD and was chosen - I refuse to call this process "elected" because his two rivals were "bitten away" - to lead the SPD into the 1998 federal election. Several times he proclaimed publicly he wasn't interested in what the intellectuals think of him as long as he has the popular support expressed by the biggest German tabloid paper, the infamous BILD-Zeitung, (Bild - Zeitung means literally 'picture newspaper'), which expresses politics with huge headlines and simplified, short news. With a circulation of nearly 4 million copies every day BILD likes to style itself as the advocate of the ordinary man and woman. BILD, which used to support Helmut Kohl, was sympathetic to Schröder in his first term in office. However, the relationship fell apart. The bad relations resulted in a ban on BILD-journalists to fly in the chancellor's plane to state visits. He usually has an entourage of media people around him, but BILD and Stern - a left wing weekly - were too critical for Schröder's taste and were banned. Here he ressembles Kohl who in his final years banned Spiegel journalists, because he thought he wouldn't get a "fair" reporting. | |
| Bundestag Majority
| Last week I received the results of an opinion poll. The result was catastrophic for the ruling Social Democrats. They reached a record low with only 23% of Germans ready to vote SPD in the next Bundestag election; 1% less than the previous week and 7% less than in the European election in June 2004. With just 30% the SPD had lost 9% compared to the European elections of 1999. | |
| To my surprise the main opposition parties, the Christian Democratic Union and its Bavarian wing, the Christian Social Union didn't fare much better, also losing 4% in the European elections and getting 46% in the opinion poll I mentioned. The conservatives aren't rated as the strikingly better alternative. To replace Gerhard Schröder with Edmund Stoiber, the Bavarian Premier, or Angela Merkel, Leader of the Opposition in the Bundestag, doesn't enflame enthusiasm, neither in me nor in the majority of the German population. The federal government clings to a tiny majority in the Bundestag, having just 306 out of 603 seats, a majority of 9 seats. | |
| So far this majority has been enough to keep Schröder in office. But sometimes only just. With only five members of Parliament necessary to stage a revolt, Schröder very often faced his party with the threat to resign. He did it so frequently that this sword lost it sharpness. He should be very careful not to threaten to resign too often, because one day his MPs in the Bundestag might just gladly accept his resignation. As if such a small majority wasn't enough, Schröder faces an opposition majority in the upper house. The Bundesrat is the equivalent of the Senate here in Australia and also, like the Senate, represents the interest of the States.3 | |
| Bundesrat Majority | The members of the Bundesrat are not elected, but are delegates of the Land/State governments. The Länder (singular Land) are the German States. Bundesrat delegates tend to be Land government ministers or Premiers. In the case of an important legislation the Premiers use the forum of the Bundesrat to attack the government. Premier also have the right to speak in the Bundestag if laws are discussed that concern Länder interests. The majority in the Bundesrat can change at any state election. And the SPD lost nearly all state elections since 1998, resulting in a changed majority in the upper house, from a near two thirds majority for SPD and Greens in 1998 to a near two thirds majority on CDU, CSU and Liberal FDP in 2004. | |
| The Bundesrat has sixty-nine seats (not "members" as the personal identity is of no concern). The Länder with more than 7 million inhabitants have six seats (like Baden-Württemberg or Bavaria). The Länder with populations of between 2 million and 7 million have four seats (like Brandenburg or Hesse). The least populous Länder, with fewer than 2 million inhabitants, receive three seats each (Bremen, Hamburg, and the Saarland). The presidency of the Bundesrat rotates annually among the Länder and the Bundesratspräsident is the number two in the country and deputy of the German Bundespräsident since there is no vice president. | |
| By law, each Land delegation is required to vote as a bloc in accordance with the instructions of the Land Government, thus Länder with coalition governments usually abstain if the matter isn't agreed on by the involved parties on the federal level; however in accord with the German Constitution such abstentions count as a "nay" vote. A law passed in 2002 with a split vote by the Brandenburg delegation was declared void by the German Constitutional Court. | |
| The legislative authority of the Bundesrat is subordinate to that of the Bundestag, but the upper house nonetheless plays a vital legislative role. The federal government must present all legislative initiatives first to the Bundesrat; only thereafter can a proposal be passed to the Bundestag. Further, the Bundesrat must approve all legislation affecting policy areas for which the Basic Law (or constitution) grants the Länder concurrent powers and for which the Länder must administer federal regulations. The Bundesrat has increased its legislative responsibilities over time by successfully arguing for a broad, rather than a narrow, interpretation of what constitutes the range of legislation affecting Land interests. In 1949 only 10 percent of all federal laws, namely, those directly affecting the Länder, required Bundesrat approval. In 1993 close to 60 percent of federal legislation required the upper house's assent. The Basic Law also provides the Bundesrat with an absolute veto of such legislation. | |
| The political power of the absolute veto is particularly evident when the opposition party or parties in the Bundestag have a majority in the Bundesrat, which has been the case almost constantly since 1991. Whenever this happens, the opposition can threaten the government's legislative program. Such a division of authority can complicate the process of governing when the major parties disagree, and, unlike the Bundestag, the Bundesrat cannot be dissolved under any circumstances. Such stalemates are not unlike those that have been experienced in Australia, such as in 1975. However, the Constitution gives the Australian politicians less instruments to blockade the federal government. Considering that the ALP holds office in all states and territories under the German model they would have 100% representation in the Senate and an absolute power to stop any federal government decision. And in Germany there is no mediator to solve a blockade crisis. The party bigwigs have to sort it out without, let's say, a monarch or a governor-general. | |
| Observers claim that the opposing majorities lead to an increase in backroom politics, where small groups of high-tier leaders make all the important decisions and the Bundestag representatives only have a choice between agreeing with them or not getting anything done at all. The current German "Federalism Commission" is looking into this issue, among others. There have been frequent suggestions of replacing the Bundesrat with a US-style elected Senate, which would be elected at the same date as the Bundestag. This is hoped to increase the institution's popularity, reduce Land bureaucracy influence on legislation, make opposing majorities less likely, make the legislative process more transparent, and generally set a new standard of democratic, rather than bureaucratic leadership. It remains to be seen if existing party leaderships are willing to support such a step, however. | |
| Stagnation | I consider this a symbol of Germany's stagnation. Whenever something cannot be solved a commission is called in. And we face lots of problems and therefore lots of commissions:
a greying population of 80 million
an endless discussion on an immigration law that would allow skilled persons to migrate to Germany and settle there
a "reform" of the pension system has been in the making since Schröder took over in 1998
a "reform" of the health system to stop the rising costs
an unemployment rate of nearly 5 million with companies threatening – I'd like to call it blackmailing everyone– to set up new industries across the border in cheaper countries like Hungary or Romania, which results in slashing workers' rights at a scale unknown in Germany and all under a Social Democratic government | |
| Every single point could be endlessly discussed - here or in Germany. And the list should be longer, of course. No end of the discussion is in sight and people just can't be bothered anymore. They now distrust both: the major parties in government and in opposition. It doesn't mean that democracy is in any danger; the institutions aren't questioned. Because unlike the 30s or also in the 60s the voters aren't turning to extremist parties - they turn away. And they don't vote. | |
| However, I wonder which is in the end more dangerous for a democracy? | |
| The turnout for the European Elections was 43%, down 2.2% compared to 1999. The turnout at the federal election in 2002 was 79%, down 3% compared to 1998. In real figures this means that out of 61.4 million eligible voters only 48.6 million cast their vote. In some state elections the turnout was below the 60% mark. Mainly supporters of the Social Democrats stay at home. Had there been compulsory voting as in Australia, they certainly would have voted for the SPD. And although the Conservatives gained in the elections it was not because of an increased popularity, but because their usual voters turned out and cast their vote. The vote share rose, not the actual number of voters. | |
| There is widespread disbelief that the Conservatives could do any better. In fact, they are part of the governing apparatus. Lacking a majority of his own in the Bundesrat, the chancellor has to seek conservative support to get his legislation passed in the upper house. The reforms of the health system, the new immigration law or the tax reform - everything has become a joint venture, an all party enterprise, which gives the public the impression that there is no alternative to this policy. The CDU mavericks only want a more radical and a speedier "reform", which frightens off many potential supporters of a government change. | |
| The Economy | I am no economist and can't give you a detailed view of the economic situation in Germany. However, my own impression is that everybody is afraid of the future. Only this morning I got e comment of the conservative Berliner Morgenpost that said "the majority of the Germans are deeply insecure about the future". The German economy is slowly growing, but only due to foreign markets. The German market is stagnant, because everyone tries to save money for the bad times to come. Consumption is limited to the essentials. With a cut in pensions ahead, the Germans are asked to save for their old age. At the same time the dole for the unemployed is cut and limited to twelve months, everybody knows, what they put aside for their old age, their private pension system as it is called, is not secure. If one is unemployed for 12 months all their savings - except 500 Euros for every year of life - has to be consumed, before any further support from the "Agency for Work" - our new unemployment office which cannot provide work because there aren't enough vacancies - is paid. The health system becomes more and more expensive for ordinary patients. If you just enter a doctor's room, you have to pay 10 Euros every three months. Not members of the Bundestag, by the way. They have to pay just 5 Euros. | |
| The atmosphere of austerity doesn't ease with companies like Siemens and Daimler-Chrysler threatening to leave Germany and set up new production plants in South Africa or Poland if their demands for longer working hours without compensation or reduction of annual holidays aren't met. There is nothing like long service leave in Germany. The annual holiday must be taken by March the following year, otherwise there is a payout, which is only profitable for the employers. I find the accusation that the German labour force is too expensive baseless because the comparisons made by the employers usually don't take into account what is positive in Germany. They mention just the holidays everybody can get on paper, but not what is actually free time. | |
| I find it shortsighted that the employers use the atmosphere of fear - the famous German word Angst comes to mind - to turn the clock back and have all the employee benefits of the past 20 years scrapped - just because they now can. What's missing now is confidence. German employees had always been very loyal and strikes were rare in the country. Benefits were usually agreed at the discussion table between employers and employees. Since the unification the number of organised workers dropped and the unions face a dramatic loss of members, minimising not only their financial basis, but also their capacity to be a powerful negotiator at next round of enterprise bargaining. The employers should realise that for the future of industrial relations both partners - and they are partners, Tarifpartners as they are called in German - should have more or less equal strength. As soon as one becomes the dominant force the system doesn't work anymore. I hope the employers possess enough foresight not to weaken the trade unions to a point were the moderate forces lose their influence on the workforce. | |
| What government and opposition plan for the health system puts us back behind Bismarck's social reforms. I know Bismarck's name doesn't have a positive sound - neither here nor in Germany. He called himself a man of iron and blood, but he governed Prussia and Germany for 28 years and this complex personality changed in his later years from a warrior to a statesman. I mention him, because he had a vision, something I miss dearly from today's politician. And I will come back to him later in the talk. In 1883 Bismarck introduced a health system that was left more or less intact until last year with both Tarifpartners - the employers and employees – paying a 50% share of the health system. The system served us well for 120 years. From last year onwards there will be no equal share any more, but with time to come the workers will take an increasing burden year by year easing the duties of the employers who promise to create new jobs instead. We have yet to see how they fulfil their promise. So far I cannot see any positive effects on the labour market. | |
| A German sociologist, Hans-Peter Müller, wrote last year that globalisation isn't a phenomenon of this century, but the 19th century brought both: globalisation and a social welfare state. Bismarck tried to beat the rise of the Social Democrats by introducing the welfare state. After the health system in 1884, he created a "workers' accident insurance" making sure that all workers who were injured during their working period got payment while they were ill or in early retirement. And his greatest achievement was a pension system in 1889 that guaranteed a human life after retirement. Right from the start he insisted on equal share for the insurances - he even intended to force the employers to take the whole share, but gave in to pressures from the steel magnates. The "workers' accident insurance" (Unfallversicherung) had and still has to be fully paid by the employers. So far there was no change, but I am sure the employers already have plans for an alteration in their desk drawers. | |
| I don't want to give the impression as if I wanted to return to the 19th century; rather the CEOs of the big companies try to turn the clock back before 1883. I want to demonstrate, that what is happening in Germany at the moment, under a Social Democratic government (!), is to me the turning back of the clock. Short term politicians ask the population to make sacrifices - they spare themselves of course. Their health system is untouched; their pensions are safe after serving only 8 years in the Bundestag (normal workers have to pay into the pension scheme for 45 years) and a minister is guaranteed a pension from the very first day he or she is in office. It is this gap between them and us that disillusions people with everything that comes from Berlin. | |
| Schröder has lost all credibility. He lost not only the confidence of the people, but he is also losing his party. Last year more than 100,000 members left the SPD. The remaining 600,000 members are hardly motivated to fight in electoral campaigns. | |
| We need a person of Bismarck's vision. Not the one who started wars, of course. Although, I must tell you, he even fabricated them cleverly. He didn't intend to start big or crushing wars. He tried to have limited wars and he made peace readily without dishonouring the enemy. After the war against France - which didn't bring an honourable peace treaty and which brought France a republic - he said Germany was saturiert (sated); had no other territorial claims. He wasn't even interested in colonies and accepted them only after pressure groups forced him to take them under German wings. He was certainly no angel, but inside Germany he started a reform policy that really deserves the word "reform". He strengthened not only the German economy, but he also glued the German states together. | |
| After all, he always said: "I want to serve my king." That was his main objective: to serve the king - not a majority in the Reichstag, not a party, not even Germany as a whole - he never joined a party and his majority in Parliament often changed. He collaborated with the Liberals as well as with the Catholics or the landowning gentry, whatever suited him and his policy. He was certainly a conservative with a small c and he disliked all kinds of socialism. But he respected the wish of the people to have a kind of safety and to enjoy a fair share of the German industrial growth. | |
| Do we need another Bismarck? Certainly not. But we need men and women of vision. And we need men and women ready to serve. And not only their parties or particular interests. I don't want to sound too reactionary, but I wish we had at least some politicians who would say: I serve my king, because a monarch personifies so much more than a republic. Of course I know that the monarchy is not on the agenda in Germany. No politician talks about a monarchy. Let me remind you that there was never a referendum on the monarchy in Germany, neither after World War I nor after World War II. | |
| The present constitution, the so-called Grundgesetz or basic law, was drawn by 65 members in 1949 and adopted by a majority of the so-called Parlamentarischer Rat (Parlamentarian Council) as by a majority of state parliaments (not by the Bavarian, by the way), never in a referendum. In fact the direct say of the people is only possible in some states and referenda are very rarely used. And although the 1949 version of the basic law explicitly stated that it would lose its validity the day "the German people unifies in one state" this, of course didn't happen in 1990, when the GDR became part of the federal republic. Kohl was against a new constitution and so this sentence was eliminated from the basic law and everything went on as before. | |
| Solutions? | I don't know how Germany could be pulled out of the current stagnation. New energy is needed and it will certainly not derive from a destruction of the social security system that means so much to the Germans. I remember a couple of years ago an old colleague told me that the German pension system survived two world wars and two inflations and various forms of government. Everyone who joined the workforce and left it after 45 years could be sure to get a pension that allowed a dignified life in retirement. This belief in the social security system is fading away. And nothing is there to replace it. | |
| Schröder for another Term in Office? | Schröder announced that he wants to run again in 2006 for a third term. As you may remember, the last election to the Bundestag in September 2002 fell into the pre-Iraq war period. Gerhard Schröder championed the electoral campaign with two main topics: the flood disaster in East Germany and his opposition to the war in Iraq. We are wondering what he may use as his campaign topic in 2006. He cannot stage another flood. Could he champion again against another war? Certainly his anti-war stand helped him to make it to the chancellery. Any other success of his policy is not in sight. All his so-called reforms didn't improve the economic situation and they certainly didn't boost optimism about the future. | |
| His only successes lie in European and foreign policy. The friendship with France certainly stabilises his government and gives him some desperately needed gloire. The EU provides the impression that Germany has some influence and is respected. But it may also damage his coalition government, because rumours don't stop that foreign minister Joschka Fischer is heading for an international career. And since the UN cannot be an aim, he would certainly be vetoed by the US government - at least the present one - he might become a commissioner of the EU. The loss of the popular foreign minister that brought the Green party to unknown parliamentarian heights would destroy all chance of Schröder winning a third term. | |
| I personally doubt that a CDU/CSU/Liberal government would be any better. To be honest: I am at a stage, where I distrust all of them. That doesn't prevent me from voting. I will always go to polls and cast my vote. But I feel reminded of Bertold Brecht who once wrote: If elections would change anything, they would have been abolished a long time ago. | |
| I am afraid; I am too pessimistic these days to give you any hint as to where German politics is heading. What I would prefer most - the re-establishment of the monarchy - is an extreme minority point of view and I cannot see it picked up by any party. However, the wedding of Crown Prince Frederik and Mary Donaldson was broadcast live by nine German TV networks and two TV stations had a poll after the Spanish wedding. The question was: Köhler or König. Any guess what the people wanted? In both polls about 65% wanted a king instead of the new president. | |
| The European Union might provide a new perspective. Despite the low turnout for the European elections most Germans see the EU as a helpful institution and agree with the progress of the unification of Europe. Although they are not aware of the impact of the European legislation on daily life. This is due to the fact that the German politicians keep this more or less hidden away from the public. And as in the past, Germans will not have any say on the EU Constitution. It is presented and they have to accept it. No alteration possible - so it is said. Even Britain will vote on the EU Constitution. The German parties - with the exception of the small liberal party and parts of the CSU - agree that an adoption by the Bundestag and Bundesrat would be sufficient. A referendum would only lead to unrest. And Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said: "Why vote on the EU Constitution? It is good as we wrote it and alterations are neither necessary nor possible." Does this attitude lead to greater participation in public life? I have my doubts. And I have many doubts about Germany. That's why I enjoy being in Australia which has a much more positive attitude to nearly everything I experience in Germany. And Australia is a monarchy and should keep it. | |
| Thank you very much for your attention. | |
| Melbourne, 29th July 2004 | |
