Archiv der Kategorie: German Politics

compulsory reading, German Politics, oddly enough

Schultz, and Schulz

Schultz, and Schulz

Maybe Silvio Berlusconi had an overdose of the 1960s American tv series “Hogan’s Heroes“, in which a stereotypically imbecile Tscherman POW camp guard named Hans Schultz (played by John Banner) is the prime target of allied humour. Maybe he is just bad with German surnames and somehow mixed up Schultz with Schulz while not actually trying to offend the vice chairman of the socialist Parliamentary group in the European Parliament, German MEP Martin Schulz, by saying – according to the Guardian –

“Mr Schulz, I know there is in Italy a man producing a film on the Nazi concentration camps. I would like to suggest you for the role of leader. You’d be perfect.”

Or maybe he did try to insult Mr Schulz. Mr Berlusconi was given the opportunity to retract his statement but refused to do so, even in light of MEPs shouting in the usually rather calm chamber. The row was caused by Mr Schulz wondering about the political effects of Mr Berlusconi’s media empire which, in conjunction with political control over RAI gives him a 80-90% share of mind in the Italian television market.

Welcome to Berlusconia.

I suppose a lot of people expected some sort of scandal along the way, but few will have expected it already on day two of the current six-month Italian Presidency of the European Union. One really has to wonder why he lost himself like this – he may be in control of televised opinion and the parliamentary majority in Italy and this may keep him from being criminally punished for the stuff he did to become what he became – but Europe is a different ballgame. The unique, and admittedly questionable, Italian balance of power, should have prompted him to keep as low a profile on the European stage as possible and silently manage affairs in a way that would somehow placate critics.

His presidency would have been severely scrutinized anyway – and rightly so – but following this start, he will either be forced to stay under deck entirely or face vocal critisicm every time he will open his mouth. Either way, his presidency will be ineffetive.

Mr Schulz’ reaction following today’s incident is probably an accurate reflection of many MEPs’ opinion – (quote according to the Guardian)

“My respect for the victims of fascism will not permit me to deal with that kind of claim at all … It is very difficult for me to accept that a council president [Mr Berlusconi] should be exercising this office at all when he comes out with this kind of statement.”

Well, we know he will. It’s bad timing, sure. But while he can’t do much damage to the EU, the amount of criticism he is likely to face in the coming months is likely going to strain his stand in Italy, too.

So maybe, one day, we will be able to say that, first, he lost his cool…

Update: Spiegel online reports that Berlusconi, speaking to the conservative Parliamentary party at the EP, stated that he was sorry “in case he had hurt the feelings of the German people.”

Update: Henry Farell thinks Berlusconi could have given the EP the opportunity to stage an institutional power struggle –

“It’s also leading to a test of strength between the institutions of the EU. The President of the Socialist party in the Parliament, who is coincidentally Italian, is painting this as a grave crisis in Parliament-Council relations, saying that Berlusconi needs to issue a formal apology to the Parliament on behalf of the Council. If the Parliament gets this formal apology (don’t hold your breath), it’ll be a major precedent – the Parliament will have succeeded in holding the Council accountable for its actions – just like a normal Parliament does. Even if the Parliament doesn’t get its way, it will very likely try to push this as far as it can. The Parliament’s current President, Pat Cox, is the same guy who engineered the en-masse resignation of the European Commission some years back, when he was head of the European Liberals. Cox knows how to use political crises to augment Parliament’s powers.”

Standard
Economics, German Politics, oddly enough

Too cocky indeed.

Just two links to articles in today’s Sueddeutsche Zeitung in this post. But since they are about Mr Cocky mentioned in the previous post I decided to put them here.

In the first article, Juergen Peters is described as failed missionary, while the second reports that some people in his union want to see his head on the block after IG Metall’s historic defeat.

You can tell the extent to which the climate in Germany has changed when the metal employer association’s chairman, Martin Kannegiesser, sees it fit to state that “breaking the unions’ neck” would be stupid (just like the chancellor did yesterday, not without displaying a certain smugness). Boy, they do enjoy their victory… :)

Let’s just hope that they won’t get too cocky now and remember that even wounded animals can still be quite dangerous…

Standard
compulsory reading, Economics, German Politics, oddly enough

Strange Happenings…

Now at least the universe loves us ;-). From sixsixfive via Le Sofa Blogger…

The Heal West Germans man

Entirely unrelated – the desk-cleaning action did take longer than expected, so I won’t be able to comment in lenght on this weekend’s exciting developments in German politics. The proposed accelrated tax break is quite remarkable in itself, as is the CDU’s refusal to do some serious subsidy removal business. Sure, the government will primarily target the oppposition’s target groups when proposing cuts – but why wouldn’t the CDU use this as a starting point to talk about cutting SPD-treasured subsidies as well, so that a substancial cut in subsidies would be the all-party compromise, instead of blocking change at all? This is clearly not going to help them electorally, but they may need some more time to figure this out.

As for the IG Metall’s ending the Summer Of Discontent, aka the most pointless metalworker strike ever, Papascott and Eamonn Fitzgerald have some coverage. To add something they can’t tell you…

When I was in Prague two weeks ago, I had un coup de rouge in a rather hidden little garden restaurant close to the Charles bridge where – at the table behind me – a group of German trade unionists was having a ball – drinking Moravian red and smoking cigars while discussing how to handle the strike and the press. At some point, one of the men at the table laughingly told the group that BMW had allegedly complained to the chancellor about the economic sideeffects of IG Metall’s strike…

When I shyly turned my head to look at the table behind me, I am almost certain I saw the profile of Juegen Peters, chairman to be of IG Metall, and now held responsible for the disaster by most commentators, laughing and zipping on his cigar – a scene slightlyreminiscent of those caricatures of cigar smoking capitalists.

Pulling off an unreasonable strike in the worst possible economic climate was probably intended to boost his – already agreed on – election as chairman in November this year. I suppose he wanted to demonstrate that the union does still have the power to go all the way.

Well, it looks like he might have smoked that cigar a little too early, like he was a little too cocky. But let’s face it – his mistake does have positive side effects – now everybody has understood that this time, change is for real – that is, maybe apart from the CDU. But they will get there eventually.

Standard
German Politics

Unintended Consequences.

The investigation against a Ukrainian criminal women trafficing organisation that has also led to cocaine possession charges against the tv talk show host and vice chaiman of the Central Council of Jews in Germany is having a positive side effects. Just as Mr Friedman’s home was raided and searched for cocaine because he had talked to call-girl-ring pimps whose phones were monitored by police, some German Parlamentarians seem to have become involved in this investigation.

Prostitution (but not pimpimp) is entirely legal in Germany so they could not be charged for indulging in sexual favours of East European women, but, well – for all our old European decadent open-mindedness – paying for sexual services is still something at least most public figures will certainly never talk about freely (But then again, there are public figures who used their party-paid-for airline miles for personal trips to Bangkok…)

So now German MPs are seriously annoyed about the simplicity with which “third parties” to an investigation can become dragged into a criminal prosecution and possibly have to bear the negative consequences of publicity, an argument made for ages by just about every privacy advocate with a public voice, including Green MP Christian Stroebele.

While I usually don’t agree with his loony-left arguments, I hope he is right when he says that (according to Spiegel Online) personal vulnerability could help MPs from all parties to rebalance privacy and security arguments.

Standard
German Politics, Iraq, US Politics

The Next Tirpitz?

Ha – I knew it. My gentle readers, I am going to tell you a little secret.

On last new years eve I bet a young German Navy officer for six bottles of Champagne that, in ten years, Germany would have at least ordered a brand new Aircraft carrier… and today – according to Spiegel Online – Roland Koch, the premier of the German state of Hessen and friend of George W. and eternal conservative hopeful in the CDU took advantage of a day trip to the coast to explain that, well, the changed requirements of military interventions might very well include ordering an Aircraft Carrier…

Don’t worry, Roland Koch is not quite the next Tirpitz. This is, above all, funny – for the time being. But yes, the Navy brass will vote CDU next time… ;).

And for the real deal, Harvard’s Andrew Moravcsik shares his thoughts about “Striking a New Transatlantic Bargain” (full text requires subscription) in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs, entitled “After Saddam”.

Here’s Moravcsik’s brief sketch of the current transatlantic reality –

“The Iraq crisis offers two basic lessons. The first, for Europeans, is that American hawks were right. Unilateral intervention to coerce regime change can be a cost-effective way to deal with rogue states. In military matters, there is only one superpower — the United States — and it can go it alone if it has to. It is time to accept this fact and move on.

The second lesson, for Americans, is that moderate skeptics on both sides of the Atlantic were also right. Winning a peace is much harder than winning a war. Intervention is cheap in the short run but expensive in the long run. And when it comes to the essential instruments for avoiding chaos or quagmire once the fighting stops — trade, aid, peacekeeping, international monitoring, and multilateral legitimacy — Europe remains indispensable. In this respect, the unipolar world turns out to be bipolar after all.

Given these truths, it is now time to work out a new transatlantic bargain, one that redirects complementary military and civilian instruments toward common ends and new security threats. Without such a deal, danger exists that Europeans — who were rolled over in the run-up to the war, frozen out by unilateral U.S. nation building, disparaged by triumphalist American pundits and politicians, and who lack sufficiently unified regional institutions — will keep their distance and leave the United States to its own devices. Although understandable, this reaction would be a recipe for disaster, since the United States lacks both the will and the institutional capacity to follow up its military triumphs properly — as the initial haphazard efforts at Iraqi reconstruction demonstrate.

To get things back on track, both in Iraq and elsewhere, Washington must shift course and accept multilateral conditions for intervention. The Europeans, meanwhile, must shed their resentment of American power and be prepared to pick up much of the burden of conflict prevention and postconflict engagement. Complementarity, not conflict, should be the transatlantic watchword.

Standard
German Politics, oddly enough, quicklink, sex

Skandal im Sperrbezirk?

The ongoing investigation regarding a ring of east European women trafficers that has led to alligations of Cocaine posession against the German “political” talk show host and vice-chairman of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, Michael Friedman seems likely to become some sort of the Berlin Republic’s first Heidi Fleiss scandal.

Meanwhile, Sueddeutsche Zeitung reviews the Bonn Republics history of scandals and comes to the conclusion that there really wasn’t anything saucy… but now, luckily, things are about to change ;-).

Standard
compulsory reading, German Politics, media

Skydiving. The Life and Death of Juergen W. Moellemann.

There are a lot of things one could say about Juergen W. Moellemann. And I am pretty sure that the German media is going to say pretty much all of them in the coming days and hours of reporting the details of the circumstances surrounding his dramatic death earlier today, when he – in what clearly looks like suicide for an experienced parachute enthusiast who often performed jumps as campaign events – jumped, then separated himself from his main parachute and did not use the spare one. Only fifteen minutes before this happened, the German Bundestag had lifted his Parliamentary immunity and police had entered several of his houses and his company’s offices with search warrants investigating several charges, especially tax related campaign funding fraud.

Despite his political record as federal minister, his self-declared role as vocal advocate of Palestinian cause, and last year’s unfortunate and eventually unsuccessful attempt to push the German Liberals even further to the non-economic right than they had gone on their own – including some forays into what many said was a verbal anti-semitism previously unheard of in post-war German politics that caused a huge stir of protest, and ultimately led to his latest political downfall, the sort-of-forced resignation from the party whose deputy leader he once was – most people will probably remember Juergen Moellemann for his abilty to crash and rebound. The teacher-turned-politician’s all-too-evident desire for public attention was certainly helpful to achieve this. And his ability to perform a good political show is hardly matched by anyone in the German political arena.

Political commentators in Germany have often dwelt upon how Moellemann’s high-risk hobby reflected his high-risk political life. Today, it seems the latter one was indeed the riskier activity. He had manoevered himself into a situation where he apparently felt that no parachute would assure a safe landing.

So he decided he did not need one anymore.

PS: Check Stefan Sharkansky’s Shark Blog for English coverage of the story.

Standard
compulsory reading, German Politics, quicklink

The Slow End Of German Corporatism

Almost unnoticed by the media, an important part of the medieval remnants of German corporatism was silently buried by the Federal cabinet today.

The ‘Meisterprivileg’ – master privilege – effectively keeping people from opening businesses in a lot of markets – mostly those with medieval guild-predecessors – by handing over the right to grant the permission to do so to the “guilds” of those who already own one. It certainly kept the returns high for those who were in the business and thus it was not too surprising to hear them scream today that increased competition will cost employment.

In the short run, this is a possible scenario. In the medium run, this reform is a major step to help create the sort of entrepreneurial environment this country needs so badly, especially in conjunction with the small business tax simplifications about to be implemented. Go Gerhard, go!

Standard
German Politics

Even More Zeitenwende

Finally online. In this post, I try to address some of the points raised by the two discussants Markus and Hans ze Beeman with regard to my Zeitenwende entry below.

Is there really a “union demonisation game” going on, as Markus alleges? It would be a very interesting academic question to identify in detail the extent of “responsibility” the unions have to bear with respect to this econom’s problems to adjust to a changing economic climate. But that would be a question that would have to be addressed in a multitude of phd theses in economic history and political science. But that’s evidently a bit beyond the scope of this little blog. But to cut the long story short – here’s what I think.

The union’s involvement in the corporatist decision making process in Germany, directly in institutions like the Federal Employment Office (Bundesanstalt für Arbeit) as well as indirectly through political parties, in particular the SPD, in my opinion allows to assert that their organisational interests in combination with the specificites of the German social security system are indeed to a significant extent responsible for a the German economy’s problems to adjust to changing economic climate. In fact,

What I wanted to say in my first Zeitenwende entry was not that the Unions are the only ones responsible for the lack of flexibility in the German economy. But their sometimes healthy, but these days often unhealthy, class-warfare-reminiscent interventions are part of what I referred to as “failed leadership”.

I don’t see them as a victim of “neoliberal discourse hegemony” [neoliberal has become a rather empty label these days, if there ever was a real meaning to it]. But even if, I don’t think scapegoating them would have negative impacts on their functional role – it is not their wage bargaining function that being scapegoated but their claimed general social policy mandate. The latter is mainly a question of discourse hegemony, in my opinion. I agree that an analytical seperation is difficult – where should the line be drawn? In the end, it probably comes down to the question whether the unions can credibly claim to fill the term “social justice” with a meaning.

For a long time, they could. But now, I am sensing that the balance of power has shifted. This country has been debating these questions for ages. There hasn’t been fundamental growth since 1992. While some said back then what others are saying today, timing is very important in politics, especially, of course, when it comes to such a major social policy overhaul as we will be witnessing soon.

It is certainly difficult to separate signals from noise and echos in this debate, but I sense that the union’s constant opposition in the light of continuing economic gloom has led many people to conclude that they haven’t quite mastered the available figures. An example of what I am referring to is that Germany’s most popular satire programme mad fun of unions in its final episode. I can’t remember a single previous episode in which the unions were dealt with in a critical way. Actually, watching this was the original motivation to write an entry about “the end of an era”. In this respect, Hans ze Beeman has posted a link to some interesting ones generated by a huge internet survey carried out by the consultancy McKinsey & Company.

So I stand by my opinion: More and more people are willing to invest in the size of the pie rather than simply fight about their share.

In the end, as we all seem to agree on the necessity of deregulation, the question of union demonization comes down to one of processual ethics in politics. I would say that it is perfectly in order to use the unions as scapegoats, should that be necessary – others might disagree because they fear that this could be taked too far, thereby seriously damaging the fundamentals of corporatist coopration without any real alternative. This clearly is possible. But I don’t think so.

Sure, in an ideal world, I would prefer to have a Habermas’ ideal speech situation and have everyone agree on what’s necessary for everyone. But – Markus guessed rightly that I would say so – such a world does not exist. And in this world, in my opinion, careful union bashing is just what is necessary now.

PS: The comments are not gone. I just don’t know why Reblogger does not display them. I hope I can fix that later. In the meantime, please find the two “lost” comments below. All others are in the comment section to the first entry.

markus(www) said at 12:20 25/5/2003:

the missing part of your post may make this comment stupid, but I’ll risk it nonetheless: why do we need a scapegoat? why can’t we go about this in a rational way?

as far as I can tell, there are some suggestions from the unions which make sense. For instance, downsizing the about 80.000 tax rules Germany currently has (I got the number from a recent documentary). on the other side, there are restrictions, which hinder the economy, which the unions try to keep and in which the unions truly represent the workers in the electorate. job security for instance. so why is this issue tackled by bashing the unions, instead of entering into a dialogue with the electorate and explaining slowly and carefully, without spin and hype, why this step is necessary. You might say, politics don’t work that way, to which I’d respond we can’t afford the traditional ways of politics any more. To me, the purely party-san style of politics we have now, where each side cries “murder” whenever opposing an unpopular but necessary measure might gain some votes is far more damaging to the economy (basically because I believe it adversely affects the psychological requirements for growth) than the unions. They are of course part of it, playing along, just as e.g. the “Bundesaerztekammer”.

If we agree, that the problem is the electorate’s unwillingness to change the status-quo, bashing a scapegoat won’t help. Sure, those doing the bashing may feel better afterwards, for venting some righteous anger but IMHO it’s just a further distraction from the real problem.

That said, I’d like to add I don’t wholly agree with your distinction between the wage bargaining function of the unions and their claimed genral social policy mandate. Please elaborate, why representatives of a sizeable percentage of the employees cannot adress other issues than wages, like for instance job security, working conditions etc. We certainly both have a gut feeling for the point at which the unions are no longer doing their real job, but I can’t think of an analytical solution to this. Ceterum censeo, your input windows are too small, please change width from 122px to a percentage.

hans ze beeman(www) said at 23:33 25/5/2003:

why is this issue tackled by bashing the unions, instead of entering into a dialogue with the electorate and explaining slowly and carefully, without spin and hype, why this step is necessary

because this has been done ad nauseam. It is not time to ponder, ruminate, explain or discuss anymore, it is TIME TO ACT. And the trade unions today showed what they thought about Agenda 2010, which is NOTHING compared to the necessary future changes: they protested in a fully rational way. I predict there will be a grand coalition at the end of the year, and Schr�der will be gone. This would end the immobility and solipsism of the big parties.

If we agree, that the problem is the electorate’s unwillingness to change the status-quo, bashing a scapegoat won’t help.

Errrm, 75% of Germans according to Emnid want changes. And look at http://www.perspektive-deutschland.de for an intersting picture of public opinion. Personally, I bash the unions because they represent socialism and etatism, which is the contrary to freedom. They hide their socialism under the label of “social justice”, which is even more appaling (the representants of the trade unions are either incompetent or cynical and sardonic concerning the people they claim to “represent”). Just look at the renoveling of the “Betriebsverfassungsgesetz”, which produced larger unemployment because those companies having more than 200 employees must now put up with a “Betriebsrat”. See here: Many companies with 20x employees put some out of job or did not hire new ones to stay beneath the 200 border.

Standard