2011 has been (and will continue to be) a year of exceptional importance for German politics, bringing a number of fundamental changes to the broader political landscape.

Elections will take place in seven of the sixteen German Federal States this year, which will have a significant impact on both the country’s political mood as well as Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ability to govern. Since Federal States – via the German Upper House, the Bundesrat, – must approve important bills, state elections also have important consequences at the federal level.

Interim result could not be worse for the governing coalition

Four of those seven elections are over, and the governing coalition comprised of the conservative CDU and the liberal FDP parties (led by Chancellor Merkel and Foreign Affairs Minister Guido Westerwelle, respectively) has a great deal to be concerned about.

An early defeat in Hamburg

In mid-February, elections in the Federal State of Hamburg ended with an absolute majority for the Social Democrats, while the conservative party was voted out of office, seeing its worst electoral returns since World War II.

Barely holding on in Saxony-Anhalt

One month later, governing conservatives in Saxony-Anhalt were just barely able to retain their majority, mainly because votes for the two leading opposition parties, the Social Democrats and the Socialists, canceled each other out. Liberals experienced their first heavy defeat, failing to capture even 5% of the popular vote. They will – at least for the next five years –not be represented in the State Parliament.

Baden-Wurttemberg and Rhineland-Palatinate: losses mount for conservatives and Liberals

After holding power there for more than 50 years, the conservative party suffered significant losses in Baden-Wurttemberg and was voted out of office. Against the backdrop of the Fukushima nuclear accident, the Green Party more than doubled its share of the vote. Now, for the first time in German history and since the founding of the Greens some 30 years ago, a Federal State will likely be governed by a Green Prime Minister. In Rhineland-Palatinate, liberals again failed to pass the 5% threshold and will no longer be represented in the state parliament.

What happened?

At the outset of 2011, the governing coalition faced a series of scandals and political hurdles. The former star of the Bavarian conservative party (and potential successor to Chancellor Merkel), Dr. Karl Theodor zu Guttenberg, was forced to resign from the position of Defense Minister after he was accused of having plagiarized large parts of his PhD thesis. Equally damaging was the government’s abstention from a United Nations vote authorizing action in Libya, which not only irritated many people outside Germany but also (former) conservative supporters of the government.

In recent weeks, however, the dominant issue for the German public has been the question of nuclear energy policy, particularly in light of the Fukushima crisis. Just a year ago, Chancellor Merkel’s government reversed a decision by the previous government (led by Social Democrats and Greens) to shut down all nuclear power stations in Germany by 2018 at the latest. Against massive protests by opposition parties and the public at large, Chancellor Merkel extended the life of Germany’s nuclear facilities for a significant period of time – up to 14 years in some cases.

Weakened by a flood of terrifying images from Japan and abysmal performance in public opinion polls, Chancellor Merkel recently performed an about-face on nuclear policy: just two weeks before elections took place in Baden-Wurttemberg and Rhineland-Palatinate, she decided to switch off the seven oldest nuclear power stations for a moratorium period of three months. At the moment, it is very likely that they will never be reactivated.

Merkel and Westerwelle are challenged to heed the consequences – but what if they do not?

Neither voters nor party colleagues were impressed by these maneuvers. As a consequence, both Chancellor Merkel and Minister Westerwelle must now manage strained relationships with their own parties.

Within the FDP, Westerwelle’s inner-party opponents have claimed publicly that he will be replaced as party chairman. Since his party’s support has eroded by almost 10% in the polls since the last Federal Elections in 2009 and would hardly pass the 5% threshold if elections were today, Westerwelle’s time – at least as a head of the party – seems to be running short. It is likely that he will be forced to resign his chairmanship at the upcoming annual party congress in May, so he can concentrate on his job as Foreign Affairs Minister. However, his competitors (mostly younger members) are still hesitant to revolt against him, since most of them owe their own career to Westerwelle. Therefore, it might turn out that Westerwelle will remain in his office as party chairman, at least as long it takes to organize a more structured transition of power.

Criticism from within the CDU has come primarily from the party’s right-wing, representing business-friendly, bourgeoisie voters claiming a reversion to true conservative values. Although times are certainly difficult for her at the moment, Chancellor Merkel benefits today from what many observers call her biggest strength: after successfully eliminating all of her inner-party opponents one after another in recent years, there is simply nobody left today with the will or power to overthrow her.

At least one thing seems to be assured today – in just a few weeks, the only two German political parties supportive of nuclear power have completely reversed their position. As a result, the idea that Germany should entirely abandon nuclear power represents the overwhelming consensus among citizens and political leaders.

Beyond that shift, the interim crisis of the governing CDU and FDP coalition might end with some “cosmetic adjustments“ in the government or parliamentary assignments. But in the end, most would agree that given their currently disastrous polling numbers, Merkel and Westerwelle are closely aligned in their goal to bring this legislative period to a more or less successful end in 2013.

–Benjamin Sokolowski, FH Berlin

Ten years ago, John Bruton, the then leader of Ireland’s main opposition party at the time, Fine Gael, was deposed by his colleagues, who sensed that the party was facing a drubbing in the following year’s general election. Among those who stepped forward to challenge for the leadership was a long-serving, affable yet remarkably unspectacular political figure by the name of Enda Kenny. Then a member of Irish Parliament for 25 years, Kenny promised to ‘electrify’ the party. Many –including some within his own ranks –laughed dismissively at this pledge, while some commentators joked that ‘electrocute’ was a more likely outcome. Read more »

Michael Lewis

The current issue of Vanity Fair has a very lengthy investigation of the collapse of the Irish economy by Michael Lewis, author of a number of lively accounts of the dismal science of economics.  Liars Poker and The Big Short are very accessible and often funny investigations of the bizarre world of high finance that focus on the people involved to illustrate larger insights.

Turning his attention to the situation in Ireland, he uses the same technique.  As an Irish American, I was most amused by his ironic observations on how this particular economic crisis is informed by the unique qualities of the Irish.

Read more »

“Wankin’ Bankers!”

Not for delicate ears, but a good indication of the view of the “man on the street.”

Check out the Taiwanese version of the Irish economic crisis.  Note the stereotypes.

I’ve just returned from a family vacation to Ireland.  We arrived just as the economic crisis reached its peak and the so-called “bailouts” were being debated in Dublin and throughout Europe.  When I was last in Ireland, it was just as the recession that ended the era of the Celtic Tiger was officially announced.  It appears things have gone downhill from there.

Read more »

Recently, I spotted a piece on the front page of ‘de Volkskrant’ with the title ‘Call from Obama’. In a big editorial, President Obama emphasised the great importance of the European-American alliance within NATO. “Taking steps together towards a situation where the Afghan people take more and more control” are the soothing words Obama uses to convey the simple message that the Netherlands should get on and send that mission to Afghanistan!

“So what?” you may be thinking. After all, it’s not the first time a member of a foreign government has sent an editorial to a Dutch newspaper. Fair enough, but from a Public Affairs point of view it actually means just one thing: Obama is having a tough time. A public appeal in the Dutch media is a final attempt at moving the Dutch people to support the mission. The American lobby in the Netherlands for supporting the Afghanistan mission appears to be foundering. Read more »

Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands has called for a stable government that is needed to decisively shape the economic recovery. Beatrix did so in the annual Speech from the throne, that marks the opening of the new parliamentary year. With her statement the queen indirectly referred to the fact that since the elections of June 9^th the Netherlands is already 104 days without new government. Conservative-liberal leader Mark Rutte, who won the elections, is still having formal coalition talks with the Christian-Democrats (CDA) and the Party for Freedom (PVV) in shaping a minority government with the support of the ultranationalist PVV.

A substantial package of cuts is necessary to position our country in the long term. A new government will be responsible for “necessary” measures to be taken after 2011 years, according to the queen. With The annual Queen’s Speech the new budget for 2011 for the Netherlands has been presented. That budget comes from the outgoing cabinet of Prime Minister Balkenende of the CDA.

Read more »

“….A plague o’ both your Houses…” Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, 1592

The final structure of the next Federal Government is now clear. With Parliament due to convene on September 28, the workability of a minority government will soon be put to the test.

Labor have had their majority stripped away with strong swings against them in NSW (-4.7%), Queensland (-5.3%), Northern Territory (-4.6%) and Western Australia (-2.3%). At the same time there were swings towards Labor in Tasmania (+4.4%) and South Australia (+0.8%). While Victoria showed an initial swing towards Labor in early counting, the latest numbers show a static result (+0.01%).

The debate as to what caused this double hung parliament will go on for some time. One commentator probably was the most correct when he suggested that every theory has a grain of truth to it. The trends were regionally based and can be linked to issues such as the Mining Tax, asylum seekers, an aversion to waste and debt and frustration at the competence of some State administrations affecting the Labor brand.

Read more »

Here we are on the 7th September with a result, a feat all the more miraculous given that the election itself was held two and a half weeks ago on Saturday 21st August. The question on the electorates’ lip has been ‘what are we waiting for?’ and today we found out.

When final counts were in, and there were delays occurring in a number of seats because of postal votes, the incumbent Labor and Opposition Coalition won 72 seats each, leaving both parties 4 short of the magic 76 required to form a government. The fight was on for the allegiance of the six crossbench MPs left – in the form of four Independents, one National Party of Western Australia and one Australian Green (the first ever Green Party MP elected to the Federal Government in Australia).

Adam Bandt (Green) and Andrew Wilkie (Independent but former Green) gave their support early to Labor and Julia Gillard. The National Party member Tony Crook, classed as a Coalition member by the Australian Electoral Commission and ABC, despite his protestations to the contrary eventually gave his support to Tony Abbott’s Coalition. Leaving three Independents to negotiate with the finish line agonisingly close at 74-73 to Labor.

Day 17 and the three knew it was time to give the electorate what they wanted. At 1pm they went into a meeting together to discuss the final choices, but unexpectedly emerged separately. Bob Katter immediately called a press conference and declared he was for the Coalition, but left some people guessing whether that’s where he’d stand once the others announced their decisions.

At 3pm there was a press conference with the remaining undecideds – Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott. Windsor went first stating that his decision had been based on NBN policy, renewable energy and climate change policies and the good of regional Australia. He acknowledged the parties were to all intents and purposes the same despite some minor differences and in the end went with Labor.

Then it was Oakeshott, who knowing that as soon as he gave his preference his mic would be cut off took his time explaining his decision – also based on the NBN and regional options. He noted that the election result demonstrated that the electorate was thoroughly unimpressed with the state of party politics in Australia and called on Members of the House of Representatives to return to the foundation of democracy and act in the best interest of their own electorates and not political parties. In the end his support went to Julia and the Labor party, making the final tally 76-74.

Time will tell what else they were offered, and took. Oakeshott has let slip that he’s been offered a position in Government for his allegiance so we’ll wait to see if he takes it up. In the meantime, it’s been a long and protracted election.

A final question remains -would the Labor party have won or lost under Kevin Rudd? We’ll never know, but one thing is sure – the electorate punished Julia Gillard and the Labor party for their decision in June.