I would say the AfD represent a populist movement, or at least harness a good part of it. There are also pronounced populist forces in the CDU (and, in the East, in Die Linke/The Left).
The difference here in Germany - as compared to the USA, and other Western countries - is that here it is all about the parties, not single people. Populists movement in other countries tend to be centred around individuals: Trump, Milei, Wilders, Le Pen, Bolsanaro, etc.
In Germany we do not have Big Men. Merkle was somewhat of an exception, but also she was never really a personal leader. She was the consummate bureaucrat., and sold herself as such.
Most of our political leaders are not voted directly by the public, but only as members of their party.
That is now also the big problem: politicians don't really sell themselves to the voters, but only internally to their party members. this way we end with someone like Scholz, a zero incarnate.
I'm not sure any European populist movement is ever really that populist. If the movement really stands up for the folk, it inevitably gets tarred as racist.
Populist movements for Jews, Africans, Mohammedans, Hispanics, and Asians are OK. It's not racist when they do it. It's self-preservation.
Viewing German politics with interest, and only a vague understanding from here in the US, am I the only one who envies the apparent nimbleness of this multiple-party system in adapting to changing circumstances? Our American system is so ossified (intentionally so by the two major parties) as to be frustratingly impervious to independent thought and third parties.
I mean, I know parliamentary systems aren't perfect, but they sure seem better than what we've got over here at the moment. But I don't know if that's a function of the systems themselves, or the fact that the US is so much larger than any European countries. Then of course we have the complication of being a republic.
Our current American system is obviously broken. We need some types of changes, either a move to a parliamentary system, or a move to allow multiple parties along with ranked choice voting, or something. Our current American system simply does not represent the will of the American people at all.
It's not broken and you guys should definitely NOT try to copy European PR systems.
There's a good reason the USA only has two parties - it only needs two, because both parties are basically amorphous and internally very democratic. You guys have open primaries! They are already coalitions of the type that German politicians are refusing to form. It's normal in the US for outsiders to come from nowhere and take over one of the two parties, radically changing its politics in the process. Trump did this, Sanders tried, arguably Obama came out of nowhere too.
That's why nobody bothers to challenge the Dem/Rep hegemony. They don't need to, it's just so much easier to change the parties than challenge them.
The European system has much bigger problems.
Firstly, PR is advertised as better representing minorities because parties have to enter coalitions, but as this whole post points out the AfD are now the biggest party in some regions of Germany yet none of the other parties will go into coalition with them. Nor can a European Trump run in a CDU primary and take it over to force change. Nor will large parts of the population respond to this problem. So the only solution is for CDU politicians to literally leave their party and start over from scratch, which is sort of like trying to build a new household brand name from a startup. Can it be done? Yes. Is it incredibly slow, expensive and likely to fail? Hell yes.
The German system has other flaws. Merkel ruled for over six months as President at one point despite having lost the election! No coalition including her party formed during this time, but she continued to rule regardless. This is called a caretaker government and she was meant to do nothing during this time except keeping the lights on. Of course she ignored that convention and did whatever she liked including signing Germany up for new foreign policy commitments.
Shit-talk your home system all you like, but a President nonchalantly continuing to rule for six months after losing an election just doesn't happen.
With time I've come to the conclusion that US politics is actually pretty responsive. First past the post forces coalition building to happen before an election, leading to clean and decisive outcomes. People expect votes to actually mean something there, whereas in Europe it's fairly common for votes to have no obvious connection to outcomes and that's corrosive.
Comparison to Canada or any other British parliamentary style system is also instructive. PM is chosen by the party, not the populace, meaning that one absolutely does not become PM without being part of the machine. Internal party discipline is ruthlessly enforced: something like the Squad or the Freedom Caucus is effectively impossible, because MPs either vote in a bloc the way the party tells them
Almost, but not quite. Depends on the PM/Leader of the Opposition's control of the party machinery and contentment within the Parliamentary and wider party. Blair had s said ruthless party discipline for most of his tenure, Cameron for some of his and Boris Johnson for a brief period after purging the most pro remain Tory MPs to somewhere during the lockdowns. Conversely, the current Sunak Government, Truss, late Johnson, very late Cameron and most of May's tenure lacked strong central control and factions did emerge. The ERG in the Tory party under May/late Cameron probably the most notable. Given Sunaks unpopularity there are similar groupings now if more informal. Similarly there was always an anti Corbyn faction within labour when he was in. This is obviously all very UK centric so Canada may be different despite being almost the same system on paper
Sorry, but your perception of American politics sounds touchingly idealistic. 'You guys have open primaries!' Not in 2016, when the Democratic party essentially ousted Bernie. The primaries are owned by the parties, they aren't part of the governmental system, and the parties pretty much do what they want. There's a veneer of democracy, but the hidden undercurrents of power are as nasty as they come.
'That's why nobody bothers to challenge the Dem/Rep hegemony. They don't need to, it's just so much easier to change the parties than challenge them.' The parties are changing, sure, but they've also both arranged the system so as to make it next to impossible for independents to get on the ballot—further cementing their hegemony.
The fact that the American left is so sour about Sanders is a good example of what I mean. They had the understanding that they could campaign to elect someone on the very left of American politics and now feel cheated. Same as what happened in the UK with Corbyn.
Difference between these two is that Labour just formally tweaked the rules to stop that happening again.
Anyway, the Democrats are turning away from democracy as a whole. The system needs to be judged over the period in which it was fully working, and both parties have had open primaries for a very long time, incontestably so.
These days I never vote for a major party. A proliferation of parties gives us people with principles and faith a place to go, someone to vote for. Eventually major parties have to listen.
I've mused a lot about the parliamentary system as a perhaps better choice, but I've observed that in nations governed by parliamentary systems, major parties almost always must make extremely unsavory coalitions with demented nutcase parties in order to achieve or maintain majorities. See, for example, Israel and I think Korea.
Yeah, I don't pretend to know much about it, but it still seems more nimble than what we're stuck with here.
And my personal theory about any group organization is that it will eventually be gamed by the sociopathic/psychopathic/opportunist elements it will inevitably attract. I wonder if a society has ever developed a system of government that requires a complete overhaul periodically, say every 100-200 years…
The idea for the US government was to exchange the people's representatives on a 2, 4, and 6 year basis. This was designed for changing policy, but it has done nothing about the bureaucracy, which has grown out of control. It's the PERMANENT members of government that need to be removed regularly, and the bureaucracy that needs to be overhauled.
If I were King for a Day here in the US, Change #1 would be to make government employees ineligible to be in a union, and establish a stronger and independent Inspector General structure to handle grievances and actually investigate corruption. Change #2 would be to close every one of our current bloated 400+ government agencies, departments, boards, etc. I would keep only those explicitly called for in the Constitution, but also force them to return to doing only what they are supposed to do. Change #3 would be to declare our Administrative Law system and it's associated Courts to be unconstitutional and dismantle all of it, effective immediately. Change #4 would be to force Congress to pass bills that are written in plain language and that can be readily understood by someone with a High School education. Change #5 would be to force Congress to explicitly delineate the Constitutional authority and the source of funding for each bill passed. Change #6 would be to force Congress to manage the Budget IAW the same Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) that the IRS and the FTC forces everyone else to live with. Change #7 would be to order the words "Climate Change" and "Diversity" excised from every government program/document/law/policy. Change #8 would be to order much heavier security to protect myself from assassins sent by Hillary, Barack, Nancy, Pfizer, Pravdabook, Amazon, Target, Budweiser, Bill Gates, George Soros, et al., while I'm making my escape to a small and very anonymous foreign country that has no extradition treaty with the US.
Maybe change 9 should be Congress cannot vote itself any special privileges. They get the same healthcare and pension benefits as their constituents for example.
Excellent ideas. For #8, I would instead be proactive and arrest, try, and imprison these people first. I would offer multi-million dollar rewards and immunity for turning states evidence against them, as well as multi-milliondollar bounties (dead or alive) for fugitives. #7 will take care of itself once all the insanity is purged.
Re periodic overhauls. This was built into the United States Constitution, which allows for constitutional amendments. However, that portion of the Constitution has been gamed, like everything else, so that now almost any constitutional amendment is considered pretty much impossible to achieve.
In Israel it's the way scumbuckets like Netanyahu keep keeping power. Most Israelis are secular yet civil life is ruled by the far, far, far right religious parties that regularly kebab common sense.
And it's always fun to see the videos of Korean members of parliament trying to strangle each other during proceedings...
That's not an aspect of Parliamentary systems. The UK has that and also FPTP, it doesn't see coalitions very often. It's an aspect of proportional representation.
The two party system of the English speaking world is really only good for financial stability. My husband said about ten years ago when Germans wake up they'll start the cascade because they have the political system that will allow it, same as Italy (although Giorgia is obviously impotent under the pope). Been watching AfD for about seven years when they were at about 2% I think - they've grown in proportion to the gimmigrant crisis. I've been wondering if the Vatican was importing them specifically to spark some action.
Were I given a free hand to overhaul the American legislature, I think I might consider a hybrid system. Convert the House into a parliamentary system, first by vastly increasing the number of seats, and secondly by possibly eliminating the geographic boundary nature of the system. Let anyone who can get $eligible_voters / $seats_in_parliament votes, from anywhere in the country, have a seat. But the number of people or the area they represent needs to be smaller.
The Senate I would leave essentially alone, functioning much as the British House of Lords, except I would absolutely keep them tied to a particular state, and I would repeal the 17th Amendment.
Obviously, there's no way to actually *get* there from here, given the incentives of the current system.
Getting rid of gerrymandering in the House absolutely. I would be in favor of at-large representatives, except then the urban centers would swamp the rural areas, not to mention what you would have then are simply mini-senators. So keep regional representation, but with limitations on gerrymandering. I understand that drawing districts using algorithms can actually work pretty well.
I can't quite grasp whether a parliamentary system for the House, as you describe, would eliminate some of these problems. Food for thought.
If by 17th Amendment you mean repealing direct election of senators, I'm not so sure about that.
I would absolutely get rid of the electoral college. I mean, we have the House for representational government; we have the Senate for state representation (i.e. republic); but the President is the president of *all of us*, and as such should be elected by nationwide popular vote.
Unfortunately, my magic wand is malfunctioning and I can't Make It So.
My big concern about eliminating the electoral college is that the cities would control the executive branch. It would be one party rule there, Democrats, and far left policies would rule the day in the administrative state and the judiciary. See California.
You might be right about that. A quick search just now indicates the urban population is about 78%. But still, in the last few presidential elections at least, the popular vote split was almost exactly 50-50 between parties.
There must be a better solution. The electoral college is entirely too easily gamed for my taste.
In 2016 Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes. In 2020 Biden won it by over 7 million votes. These margins are almost exclusively due to high density urban areas which are overwhelmingly Democrat. Republicans are not swamped like that in some of the suburbs, but the gap is just too much to overcome. In addition, the popular vote can easily be gamed, as was the case with mail in ballots due to COVID. Also, get out the vote efforts are much easier in high density populations, with many more people and less area to cover. The electoral college isn't perfect, but it is the best we have IMHO.
"except then the urban centers would swamp the rural areas, not to mention what you would have then are simply mini-senators. So keep regional representation, "
Which is then followed by:
"I would absolutely get rid of the electoral college. I mean, we have the House for representational government; we have the Senate for state representation (i.e. republic); but the President is the president of *all of us*, and as such should be elected by nationwide popular vote."
Hahaha, that actually makes sense! I understand, not everything is a binary, or clear cut, or even sensible. However with regard to the electoral college and Congress, which are designed for ie Wyoming and California to each represent their constituencies without oppression from the other, I am fully in favor of our system as is. That doesn't mean it can't be further optimized; reduced federal government, emphasis on states' rights... and let citizens vote with their feet. It makes me insane that progressives would rather turn 49 other states into California than simply loading up the Uhaul and going there to seek their own paradise.
Vote with your feet…I used to think along those lines. But right now I'm living in a house that I built with my own hands in a community that I love, and emigrating is not nearly so attractive.
> "I would absolutely get rid of the electoral college. I mean, we have the House for representational government; we have the Senate for state representation (i.e. republic); but the President is the president of *all of us*, and as such should be elected by nationwide popular vote."
Hard disagree.
Remember that the states are supposed to be roughly equivalent to separate countries in sovereignity. The United States is notionally the precursor to things like the EU, except it's supposed to be rather more constrained. He's supposed to represent the states, not "us", per se. Admittedly, my plan to radically increase the number of seats in the House *and* decouple them from state boundaries may very well effectively eliminate the Electoral College *anyway*, but I still think the general idea is sound.
This is why I bring up the 17th as well.
The House is the one that's supposed to be the representatives of the populous. The Senate is supposed to (again) represent the interests of the states. That's why I think they should go back to being selected by the State legislatures. They have a much stronger incentive to represent their *states* well, at that point, instead of doing the same stupid pandering the House and they do now.
I want vastly *less* direct democracy that we have now, and significantly more constitutional republic than we're getting.
I'm open to those arguments. About the only firm belief I have is probably not implementable: whoever *wants* to be President is automatically disqualified.
You should have a look at Germany's next door neighbor the Netherlands to see what is coming. Germany is always a decade or two behind the low countries when it comes to issues like these. Here in the next door Netherlands we currently have 15 parties in a 150 seat parliament with the biggest one gathering only 37 seats.
I think you can see the problem.
Drastic and evidently overdue changes are pretty much impossible because any majority coalition will consist of at least four parties - all having different agenda's. Painful compromises will have to be made.
It is important though not to exaggerate the ideological differences in the Dutch (and German) political spectrum. The fast majority of all the parties (currently making up over 80% of the vote) are in principle neo-liberal, globalist, pro EU and pro NATO.
And the unwillingness to address the evident problems that stem from adhering to those dogmas are exactly what brought us this mess.
The underlying issue is pretty much the same all across the western democracies - they are no longer working for the benefit of the fast majority of their population but only cater to an increasingly small elite. In practical terms the West has become an oligarchy.
One can argue that many of the rising autocracies are now more democratic in the true sense of that word than the western world is - which in itself is a deeply disturbing trend. As I see it western democracy is on life support and it is only a matter of time before someone of something pulls the plug.
If there is anything the last three plus years has taught us, it is that ossification is not permanent. If they can get people to stay home/stay safe, wear a mask, take an experimental vaccine, can't this also mean that there can be other new parties as well?
I still maintain that the only thing that will work is dismantling as much government as possible. It's not necessarily the party system at all that is the problem, but that government should intrude outside of their purview.
Under the surface the same thing is happening, eg DSA and the Squad leading a radical coups within the Democratic party, while MAGA, America First, Gaetz & co., etc. effect a similar change within the GOP. The party name stays the same, the party doesn't split, but similar conflicts play out.
As a Canadian I believe that I have come to understand the US electoral system quite well since 2016. I even have an appreciation for the oft-misunderstood electoral college.
What I don't understand are terms like "registered Democrats", "registered Republicans" and "Independents". Does that imply that certain voters have plead allegiance to a certain party? Do the Party names reflect an ideological allegiance to "democracy" versus "republic-ism"?
In Canada, we have some people that are staunch Liberals or Conservatives, and a few hundred thousand or so opt to be members of their respective parties, allowing them to nominate and/or participate in candidate selection. However, most voters up here tend to mark their ballots based on the 'promises" (as misleading as they might be) of the Party leaders.
Some people regard it as a quasi-religious pledge of allegiance, but in reality you have to be registered in a certain party in order to participate in its primaries. I used to switch every election to the party whose primary I wanted to influence. In the actual election, you can vote for whoever you want.
Oh, the other effect of registering is that you get junk mail from that party. And your name can show up on a list for get-out-the-vote efforts, etc.
Wrt. Hans-Georg Maaßen, readers not familiar with Germany might not know that the orwellian-sounding Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution is the domestic spy agency. Just saying...
And headed by a CDU party member. So totally not independent. But that's probably true for a lot of intelligence agencies. Should rather be called the Office for the protection of the SED 2.0
The EU is the biggest problem. It's set up to constitutionally override all the member states, and it's insulated from democratic politics. The ECJ is an activist court. If the AfD get into power they'll discover that whatever they want to do is mysteriously illegal under EU law, even if there didn't seem to be any such law beforehand.
The second is Germany's Verfassungsschutz system. It's possible that Germany will just ban the AfD, or find other ways to legally harass them into the ground.
The third is the civil service. Look at the mess the UK is in. The ruling party routinely discovers that direct orders aren't being implemented by the people who theoretically work for it, and they can do nothing because it's all heavily unionized and "independent".
Not as bad though, the US President can appoint a hell of a lot more of their own people than the British PM. The UK is particularly bad for this even in comparison to other parliamentary systems like Germany or Canada.
All correct, and these parties need to be clear and outline to voters from the start that their programme for government will be endlessly subverted by EU activists and that at the end of the day, like the UK, the only way is to take Germany out of the EU.
As we know, if that movement gets off the ground, that would cause the EU to collapse and is therefore existential to the EU.
The threat of a referendum (with any polling that would push it towards reality) would make the EU sit up and take notice. The AfD could use that as very heavy leverage in government.
The approach of the EU is to stop any popular parties doing anything hoping their failure will resort to a reversion to a mainstream party, but I think its too late for that.
The hope there is that the EU elections in June will be a decisive power shift to the right, the latest polling puts the popular grouping ID ahead now of the ECR by 93 seats to 82.
However, they will have to use their power in the Eurogroup of leaders, and with someone "right" enough in Germany, combined with Wilders, Meloni and Orban may be able to bloc EU anti AfD action.
The tension of trying to hang on to conservative voters whilst cozying up to the left in order to avoid associating eth the right is not survivable.
Fascinating to see how these dynamics play out in a continental state, with multiple parties and a far more dynamic factionalism. Compare to the US, where the same thing is happening within the big tents of R and D, but without rupturing the skin of the tents.
The commenterati have so far failed to notice, or don't want to say, that whatever the implications for the CDU and AfD vote, this essentially destroys the CSU as an independent party. Their only options now are to merge with the CDU fully, or go national, further complicating things.
The recent electoral reforms, which threaten to further marginalise the CSU at the federal level (by denying some of their direct mandates and reducing their representation in the Bundestag) are another nail in the coffin here. I am actually sceptical that they could compete nationally, and think if they did try that, they'd have to stake out a position much more clearly to the right of CDU. Present leadership (Söder) anyway ill-equipped for such a thing.
When were these reforms and what was their purpose, do you have a good link? UK reader with a decent grasp of how Germany runs and interested to know why the CSU in particular get hit.
CSU has been the biggest disappointment since the Merkel era. They were always right of the CDU but then they sold their soul to the CDU. I feel that Merkel had a hand in that by extinguishing any up and coming voices in the CSU with faux scandals.
I was told by a German, familiar with AfD from its inception, that infiltrators have managed to eject the key founders & taken over. The effect of this is that AfD is no longer what it is widely perceived to be.
AfD was originally founded as a Euro-sceptic liberal party in the wake of the Euro crisis. The party has indeed transformed since then, becoming basically what the CDU was a few generations ago – lightly nationalist, pragmatic, opposed to mass migration. Everybody knows this, nobody is confused about it.
Stereotypically, naivety is not the first word that would come to one´s mind to describe the long-serving head of a German secret service. And yet I can´t find a better expression for Mr. Maaßen. His criticism of the chancelleress would perhaps be more persuasive if he hadn´t served her for six years, including three years after the summer of 2015. Calling our rulers "ecosocialists" or "neosocialists" is a take so boomerish that I am at a loss for words. Just today he called the AfD a left party because... wait for it.... socialism. Und nun sage ich kein Wort mehr.
My parents are 80 years-old and diehard Democrats out here in California. I love to call my dad a Mercedes Commie, because he lives in a 4000 sf house, owns classic cars and motorcycles, yet keeps voting for the Democrats because "They care about us working people and the poor."
However, recently, my dad seems to be undergoing some sort of epiphany as prices spiral out of control, even admitting the Ukraine funding was a horrible idea and that California is on the wrong track with our "green energy " policies, which seem planned to create blackouts.
When Germany starts doing rolling blackouts because of your de-industrialization, I'm pretty sure your parents will flee the CDU. Hopefully, enough people will wake up,l before it is too late for Germany, because the US is gone.
A quote that I think is highly pertinent here is the following from Mark Steyn: "If respectable politicians are forbidden to raise certain subjects, the voters will turn to unrespectable ones."
Not that AfD are unrespectable, just Afuggalu, at least in the view of "respectable" politicians.
Mark Steyn is currently in need of much support as on 16 January in Washington DC, after many years of the "justice system" dragging its heels, he will be defending himself against Michael Mann's iniquitous defamation case. Following this, he will have to face OFCOM in the UK High Court as a result of raising on British TV the thorny issues of covid vaccine damage and the scandal of the continuing sex-trafficking of young girls in various British cities - totally ignored by the MSM. Both issues TPTB would rather not be aired in public.
Mann’s case against Mark is frivilous and has only lasted this long because it’s in DC (like the Jan 6 fake prosecutions). CJ Hopkins is going through something similar in Germany: if your satire hits too close to home for TPTB they will lawfare you.
The German electorate has a lot of hang-ups due to history, but the number of migrant rapes, murders and terrorist atrocities will continue to grow until, when every German's daughter has been raped by a Syrian, voter psychology will move sharply rightward. It will take another couple of years.
As a casual observer from afar, the parliamentary system of government looks like herding cats.
I'm not to distressed when our legislative body gets nothing done, it's when they actually agree to accomplish something that I worry. It never seems to make my life better.
Hopefully, the populists and conservatives can overcome the cultural elites who control the media, universities, and unions and corporations that benefit from big government
The MSM like in the UK is in the pocket of the left and sponsored by the EU as its propaganda arm, unless governments introduce controls on media, so that they cannot be politically biased, and in that I'd like to see anyone in the media to have to declare their votes and a political statement of their political beliefs so that the public can check what agenda the people "pushing" the "news" have.
E -
I'm surprised there's not a populist movement in Germany. Am I missing something?
I like learning about European politics.
That's one of the things I enjoy about your stack and comments from your subscribers....being an "ugly" American and all....lol.
I would say the AfD represent a populist movement, or at least harness a good part of it. There are also pronounced populist forces in the CDU (and, in the East, in Die Linke/The Left).
Thank you!
The difference here in Germany - as compared to the USA, and other Western countries - is that here it is all about the parties, not single people. Populists movement in other countries tend to be centred around individuals: Trump, Milei, Wilders, Le Pen, Bolsanaro, etc.
In Germany we do not have Big Men. Merkle was somewhat of an exception, but also she was never really a personal leader. She was the consummate bureaucrat., and sold herself as such.
Most of our political leaders are not voted directly by the public, but only as members of their party.
That is now also the big problem: politicians don't really sell themselves to the voters, but only internally to their party members. this way we end with someone like Scholz, a zero incarnate.
Thank you Andreas I just learned a lot.
Cheers!
Christine Anderson, AfD, is or may become such a Big Name.
Strange thing that:
"demos" is Old Greek and means folk, well in ancient time more often the free population only
"populus" is Latin and means folk, the free population
So "populistic" is being oriented towards the will of the folk
Isn't this the thing, "democracy" (ruling by the folk) is said to be all about?
Isn't AfD populist?
Well, according Wikipedia.
What do you think about that, then?
I'm in the US. All I know about German politics is what I read in eugyppius.
I'm not sure any European populist movement is ever really that populist. If the movement really stands up for the folk, it inevitably gets tarred as racist.
Populist movements for Jews, Africans, Mohammedans, Hispanics, and Asians are OK. It's not racist when they do it. It's self-preservation.
Apologies if that's been mentioned before
Viewing German politics with interest, and only a vague understanding from here in the US, am I the only one who envies the apparent nimbleness of this multiple-party system in adapting to changing circumstances? Our American system is so ossified (intentionally so by the two major parties) as to be frustratingly impervious to independent thought and third parties.
I mean, I know parliamentary systems aren't perfect, but they sure seem better than what we've got over here at the moment. But I don't know if that's a function of the systems themselves, or the fact that the US is so much larger than any European countries. Then of course we have the complication of being a republic.
Our current American system is obviously broken. We need some types of changes, either a move to a parliamentary system, or a move to allow multiple parties along with ranked choice voting, or something. Our current American system simply does not represent the will of the American people at all.
It's not broken and you guys should definitely NOT try to copy European PR systems.
There's a good reason the USA only has two parties - it only needs two, because both parties are basically amorphous and internally very democratic. You guys have open primaries! They are already coalitions of the type that German politicians are refusing to form. It's normal in the US for outsiders to come from nowhere and take over one of the two parties, radically changing its politics in the process. Trump did this, Sanders tried, arguably Obama came out of nowhere too.
That's why nobody bothers to challenge the Dem/Rep hegemony. They don't need to, it's just so much easier to change the parties than challenge them.
The European system has much bigger problems.
Firstly, PR is advertised as better representing minorities because parties have to enter coalitions, but as this whole post points out the AfD are now the biggest party in some regions of Germany yet none of the other parties will go into coalition with them. Nor can a European Trump run in a CDU primary and take it over to force change. Nor will large parts of the population respond to this problem. So the only solution is for CDU politicians to literally leave their party and start over from scratch, which is sort of like trying to build a new household brand name from a startup. Can it be done? Yes. Is it incredibly slow, expensive and likely to fail? Hell yes.
The German system has other flaws. Merkel ruled for over six months as President at one point despite having lost the election! No coalition including her party formed during this time, but she continued to rule regardless. This is called a caretaker government and she was meant to do nothing during this time except keeping the lights on. Of course she ignored that convention and did whatever she liked including signing Germany up for new foreign policy commitments.
Shit-talk your home system all you like, but a President nonchalantly continuing to rule for six months after losing an election just doesn't happen.
With time I've come to the conclusion that US politics is actually pretty responsive. First past the post forces coalition building to happen before an election, leading to clean and decisive outcomes. People expect votes to actually mean something there, whereas in Europe it's fairly common for votes to have no obvious connection to outcomes and that's corrosive.
Comparison to Canada or any other British parliamentary style system is also instructive. PM is chosen by the party, not the populace, meaning that one absolutely does not become PM without being part of the machine. Internal party discipline is ruthlessly enforced: something like the Squad or the Freedom Caucus is effectively impossible, because MPs either vote in a bloc the way the party tells them
to, or they will not get re-elected.
American politics is far more responsive.
Almost, but not quite. Depends on the PM/Leader of the Opposition's control of the party machinery and contentment within the Parliamentary and wider party. Blair had s said ruthless party discipline for most of his tenure, Cameron for some of his and Boris Johnson for a brief period after purging the most pro remain Tory MPs to somewhere during the lockdowns. Conversely, the current Sunak Government, Truss, late Johnson, very late Cameron and most of May's tenure lacked strong central control and factions did emerge. The ERG in the Tory party under May/late Cameron probably the most notable. Given Sunaks unpopularity there are similar groupings now if more informal. Similarly there was always an anti Corbyn faction within labour when he was in. This is obviously all very UK centric so Canada may be different despite being almost the same system on paper
Sorry, but your perception of American politics sounds touchingly idealistic. 'You guys have open primaries!' Not in 2016, when the Democratic party essentially ousted Bernie. The primaries are owned by the parties, they aren't part of the governmental system, and the parties pretty much do what they want. There's a veneer of democracy, but the hidden undercurrents of power are as nasty as they come.
'That's why nobody bothers to challenge the Dem/Rep hegemony. They don't need to, it's just so much easier to change the parties than challenge them.' The parties are changing, sure, but they've also both arranged the system so as to make it next to impossible for independents to get on the ballot—further cementing their hegemony.
The fact that the American left is so sour about Sanders is a good example of what I mean. They had the understanding that they could campaign to elect someone on the very left of American politics and now feel cheated. Same as what happened in the UK with Corbyn.
Difference between these two is that Labour just formally tweaked the rules to stop that happening again.
Anyway, the Democrats are turning away from democracy as a whole. The system needs to be judged over the period in which it was fully working, and both parties have had open primaries for a very long time, incontestably so.
These days I never vote for a major party. A proliferation of parties gives us people with principles and faith a place to go, someone to vote for. Eventually major parties have to listen.
JUST OBEY THE CONSTITUTION FOR A CHANGE...SOMETHING THAT WE HAVEN'T DONE IN OVER 160 YEARS. THENEWAMERICAN.COM LEWROCKWELL.COM TENTHAMENDMENTCENTER.COM
I've mused a lot about the parliamentary system as a perhaps better choice, but I've observed that in nations governed by parliamentary systems, major parties almost always must make extremely unsavory coalitions with demented nutcase parties in order to achieve or maintain majorities. See, for example, Israel and I think Korea.
Yeah, I don't pretend to know much about it, but it still seems more nimble than what we're stuck with here.
And my personal theory about any group organization is that it will eventually be gamed by the sociopathic/psychopathic/opportunist elements it will inevitably attract. I wonder if a society has ever developed a system of government that requires a complete overhaul periodically, say every 100-200 years…
The idea for the US government was to exchange the people's representatives on a 2, 4, and 6 year basis. This was designed for changing policy, but it has done nothing about the bureaucracy, which has grown out of control. It's the PERMANENT members of government that need to be removed regularly, and the bureaucracy that needs to be overhauled.
If I were King for a Day here in the US, Change #1 would be to make government employees ineligible to be in a union, and establish a stronger and independent Inspector General structure to handle grievances and actually investigate corruption. Change #2 would be to close every one of our current bloated 400+ government agencies, departments, boards, etc. I would keep only those explicitly called for in the Constitution, but also force them to return to doing only what they are supposed to do. Change #3 would be to declare our Administrative Law system and it's associated Courts to be unconstitutional and dismantle all of it, effective immediately. Change #4 would be to force Congress to pass bills that are written in plain language and that can be readily understood by someone with a High School education. Change #5 would be to force Congress to explicitly delineate the Constitutional authority and the source of funding for each bill passed. Change #6 would be to force Congress to manage the Budget IAW the same Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) that the IRS and the FTC forces everyone else to live with. Change #7 would be to order the words "Climate Change" and "Diversity" excised from every government program/document/law/policy. Change #8 would be to order much heavier security to protect myself from assassins sent by Hillary, Barack, Nancy, Pfizer, Pravdabook, Amazon, Target, Budweiser, Bill Gates, George Soros, et al., while I'm making my escape to a small and very anonymous foreign country that has no extradition treaty with the US.
Right?
Maybe change 9 should be Congress cannot vote itself any special privileges. They get the same healthcare and pension benefits as their constituents for example.
Excellent ideas. For #8, I would instead be proactive and arrest, try, and imprison these people first. I would offer multi-million dollar rewards and immunity for turning states evidence against them, as well as multi-milliondollar bounties (dead or alive) for fugitives. #7 will take care of itself once all the insanity is purged.
Exactly right!
> "It's the PERMANENT members of government that need to be removed regularly, and the bureaucracy that needs to be overhauled."
Well, I can certainly agree with that as well.
Re periodic overhauls. This was built into the United States Constitution, which allows for constitutional amendments. However, that portion of the Constitution has been gamed, like everything else, so that now almost any constitutional amendment is considered pretty much impossible to achieve.
In Israel it's the way scumbuckets like Netanyahu keep keeping power. Most Israelis are secular yet civil life is ruled by the far, far, far right religious parties that regularly kebab common sense.
And it's always fun to see the videos of Korean members of parliament trying to strangle each other during proceedings...
True. And this always include the anti-human green parties
and Canada?
That's not an aspect of Parliamentary systems. The UK has that and also FPTP, it doesn't see coalitions very often. It's an aspect of proportional representation.
Quibble, quibble.
(But the elaboration is appreciated.)
You are most assuredly *not* the only American in the comments here experiencing a heavy pang of jealousy.
*sigh*
The two party system of the English speaking world is really only good for financial stability. My husband said about ten years ago when Germans wake up they'll start the cascade because they have the political system that will allow it, same as Italy (although Giorgia is obviously impotent under the pope). Been watching AfD for about seven years when they were at about 2% I think - they've grown in proportion to the gimmigrant crisis. I've been wondering if the Vatican was importing them specifically to spark some action.
Were I given a free hand to overhaul the American legislature, I think I might consider a hybrid system. Convert the House into a parliamentary system, first by vastly increasing the number of seats, and secondly by possibly eliminating the geographic boundary nature of the system. Let anyone who can get $eligible_voters / $seats_in_parliament votes, from anywhere in the country, have a seat. But the number of people or the area they represent needs to be smaller.
The Senate I would leave essentially alone, functioning much as the British House of Lords, except I would absolutely keep them tied to a particular state, and I would repeal the 17th Amendment.
Obviously, there's no way to actually *get* there from here, given the incentives of the current system.
Alas.
Getting rid of gerrymandering in the House absolutely. I would be in favor of at-large representatives, except then the urban centers would swamp the rural areas, not to mention what you would have then are simply mini-senators. So keep regional representation, but with limitations on gerrymandering. I understand that drawing districts using algorithms can actually work pretty well.
I can't quite grasp whether a parliamentary system for the House, as you describe, would eliminate some of these problems. Food for thought.
If by 17th Amendment you mean repealing direct election of senators, I'm not so sure about that.
I would absolutely get rid of the electoral college. I mean, we have the House for representational government; we have the Senate for state representation (i.e. republic); but the President is the president of *all of us*, and as such should be elected by nationwide popular vote.
Unfortunately, my magic wand is malfunctioning and I can't Make It So.
My big concern about eliminating the electoral college is that the cities would control the executive branch. It would be one party rule there, Democrats, and far left policies would rule the day in the administrative state and the judiciary. See California.
Agree
You might be right about that. A quick search just now indicates the urban population is about 78%. But still, in the last few presidential elections at least, the popular vote split was almost exactly 50-50 between parties.
There must be a better solution. The electoral college is entirely too easily gamed for my taste.
In 2016 Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes. In 2020 Biden won it by over 7 million votes. These margins are almost exclusively due to high density urban areas which are overwhelmingly Democrat. Republicans are not swamped like that in some of the suburbs, but the gap is just too much to overcome. In addition, the popular vote can easily be gamed, as was the case with mail in ballots due to COVID. Also, get out the vote efforts are much easier in high density populations, with many more people and less area to cover. The electoral college isn't perfect, but it is the best we have IMHO.
'the popular vote can easily be gamed, as was the case with mail in ballots due to COVID.'
If that was the case, wouldn't it invalidate the statistics you cite regarding the 2016 and 2020 popular vote?
Struggling to square your circle here:
"except then the urban centers would swamp the rural areas, not to mention what you would have then are simply mini-senators. So keep regional representation, "
Which is then followed by:
"I would absolutely get rid of the electoral college. I mean, we have the House for representational government; we have the Senate for state representation (i.e. republic); but the President is the president of *all of us*, and as such should be elected by nationwide popular vote."
As someone else, pointed out, my circle was triangular. Or something.
All I know is, I am frustrated by gerrymandering, and have never liked the electoral college.
Hahaha, that actually makes sense! I understand, not everything is a binary, or clear cut, or even sensible. However with regard to the electoral college and Congress, which are designed for ie Wyoming and California to each represent their constituencies without oppression from the other, I am fully in favor of our system as is. That doesn't mean it can't be further optimized; reduced federal government, emphasis on states' rights... and let citizens vote with their feet. It makes me insane that progressives would rather turn 49 other states into California than simply loading up the Uhaul and going there to seek their own paradise.
Vote with your feet…I used to think along those lines. But right now I'm living in a house that I built with my own hands in a community that I love, and emigrating is not nearly so attractive.
> "I would absolutely get rid of the electoral college. I mean, we have the House for representational government; we have the Senate for state representation (i.e. republic); but the President is the president of *all of us*, and as such should be elected by nationwide popular vote."
Hard disagree.
Remember that the states are supposed to be roughly equivalent to separate countries in sovereignity. The United States is notionally the precursor to things like the EU, except it's supposed to be rather more constrained. He's supposed to represent the states, not "us", per se. Admittedly, my plan to radically increase the number of seats in the House *and* decouple them from state boundaries may very well effectively eliminate the Electoral College *anyway*, but I still think the general idea is sound.
This is why I bring up the 17th as well.
The House is the one that's supposed to be the representatives of the populous. The Senate is supposed to (again) represent the interests of the states. That's why I think they should go back to being selected by the State legislatures. They have a much stronger incentive to represent their *states* well, at that point, instead of doing the same stupid pandering the House and they do now.
I want vastly *less* direct democracy that we have now, and significantly more constitutional republic than we're getting.
I'm open to those arguments. About the only firm belief I have is probably not implementable: whoever *wants* to be President is automatically disqualified.
I certainly can't argue with that idea.
"Sir, your number came up in the Selective Service lottery. You're being drafted. You'll need to pack and come with us."
"Drafted?! But we're not at war! And I'm 47, I can't be a soldier!"
"No sir, I'm afraid it's worse than that. You've been drafted as President of the United States."
"NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!"
Exactly like that! What we need is a magical way of finding someone who least wants the job.
You should have a look at Germany's next door neighbor the Netherlands to see what is coming. Germany is always a decade or two behind the low countries when it comes to issues like these. Here in the next door Netherlands we currently have 15 parties in a 150 seat parliament with the biggest one gathering only 37 seats.
I think you can see the problem.
Drastic and evidently overdue changes are pretty much impossible because any majority coalition will consist of at least four parties - all having different agenda's. Painful compromises will have to be made.
It is important though not to exaggerate the ideological differences in the Dutch (and German) political spectrum. The fast majority of all the parties (currently making up over 80% of the vote) are in principle neo-liberal, globalist, pro EU and pro NATO.
And the unwillingness to address the evident problems that stem from adhering to those dogmas are exactly what brought us this mess.
The underlying issue is pretty much the same all across the western democracies - they are no longer working for the benefit of the fast majority of their population but only cater to an increasingly small elite. In practical terms the West has become an oligarchy.
One can argue that many of the rising autocracies are now more democratic in the true sense of that word than the western world is - which in itself is a deeply disturbing trend. As I see it western democracy is on life support and it is only a matter of time before someone of something pulls the plug.
If there is anything the last three plus years has taught us, it is that ossification is not permanent. If they can get people to stay home/stay safe, wear a mask, take an experimental vaccine, can't this also mean that there can be other new parties as well?
I still maintain that the only thing that will work is dismantling as much government as possible. It's not necessarily the party system at all that is the problem, but that government should intrude outside of their purview.
Nimbleness? First changes since WWII at this end! Exciting
Under the surface the same thing is happening, eg DSA and the Squad leading a radical coups within the Democratic party, while MAGA, America First, Gaetz & co., etc. effect a similar change within the GOP. The party name stays the same, the party doesn't split, but similar conflicts play out.
As a Canadian I believe that I have come to understand the US electoral system quite well since 2016. I even have an appreciation for the oft-misunderstood electoral college.
What I don't understand are terms like "registered Democrats", "registered Republicans" and "Independents". Does that imply that certain voters have plead allegiance to a certain party? Do the Party names reflect an ideological allegiance to "democracy" versus "republic-ism"?
In Canada, we have some people that are staunch Liberals or Conservatives, and a few hundred thousand or so opt to be members of their respective parties, allowing them to nominate and/or participate in candidate selection. However, most voters up here tend to mark their ballots based on the 'promises" (as misleading as they might be) of the Party leaders.
Some people regard it as a quasi-religious pledge of allegiance, but in reality you have to be registered in a certain party in order to participate in its primaries. I used to switch every election to the party whose primary I wanted to influence. In the actual election, you can vote for whoever you want.
Oh, the other effect of registering is that you get junk mail from that party. And your name can show up on a list for get-out-the-vote efforts, etc.
Wrt. Hans-Georg Maaßen, readers not familiar with Germany might not know that the orwellian-sounding Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution is the domestic spy agency. Just saying...
And headed by a CDU party member. So totally not independent. But that's probably true for a lot of intelligence agencies. Should rather be called the Office for the protection of the SED 2.0
It’s impossible to ignore the will of the people forever.
Yes. that's why they're changing the people.
Well...that’s an excellent point. All part of the plan.
Unfortunately it's not impossible.
The EU is the biggest problem. It's set up to constitutionally override all the member states, and it's insulated from democratic politics. The ECJ is an activist court. If the AfD get into power they'll discover that whatever they want to do is mysteriously illegal under EU law, even if there didn't seem to be any such law beforehand.
The second is Germany's Verfassungsschutz system. It's possible that Germany will just ban the AfD, or find other ways to legally harass them into the ground.
The third is the civil service. Look at the mess the UK is in. The ruling party routinely discovers that direct orders aren't being implemented by the people who theoretically work for it, and they can do nothing because it's all heavily unionized and "independent".
Similar problems in the USA with elected officials and a recalcitrant bureaucracy.
Not as bad though, the US President can appoint a hell of a lot more of their own people than the British PM. The UK is particularly bad for this even in comparison to other parliamentary systems like Germany or Canada.
No doubt.
Bureaucrats would be first against the wall if I were king!
All correct, and these parties need to be clear and outline to voters from the start that their programme for government will be endlessly subverted by EU activists and that at the end of the day, like the UK, the only way is to take Germany out of the EU.
As we know, if that movement gets off the ground, that would cause the EU to collapse and is therefore existential to the EU.
The threat of a referendum (with any polling that would push it towards reality) would make the EU sit up and take notice. The AfD could use that as very heavy leverage in government.
The approach of the EU is to stop any popular parties doing anything hoping their failure will resort to a reversion to a mainstream party, but I think its too late for that.
The hope there is that the EU elections in June will be a decisive power shift to the right, the latest polling puts the popular grouping ID ahead now of the ECR by 93 seats to 82.
However, they will have to use their power in the Eurogroup of leaders, and with someone "right" enough in Germany, combined with Wilders, Meloni and Orban may be able to bloc EU anti AfD action.
One likes to think so. Let's hope ... and pray.
The tension of trying to hang on to conservative voters whilst cozying up to the left in order to avoid associating eth the right is not survivable.
Fascinating to see how these dynamics play out in a continental state, with multiple parties and a far more dynamic factionalism. Compare to the US, where the same thing is happening within the big tents of R and D, but without rupturing the skin of the tents.
Shock horror? Are we seeing signs of democracy in Germany?!
Quickly, get some court to kick Maaßen and WerteUnion off the ballots!
You know they're winning when they are officially proclaimed "gesichert rechtsextrem"
The commenterati have so far failed to notice, or don't want to say, that whatever the implications for the CDU and AfD vote, this essentially destroys the CSU as an independent party. Their only options now are to merge with the CDU fully, or go national, further complicating things.
The recent electoral reforms, which threaten to further marginalise the CSU at the federal level (by denying some of their direct mandates and reducing their representation in the Bundestag) are another nail in the coffin here. I am actually sceptical that they could compete nationally, and think if they did try that, they'd have to stake out a position much more clearly to the right of CDU. Present leadership (Söder) anyway ill-equipped for such a thing.
When were these reforms and what was their purpose, do you have a good link? UK reader with a decent grasp of how Germany runs and interested to know why the CSU in particular get hit.
CSU has been the biggest disappointment since the Merkel era. They were always right of the CDU but then they sold their soul to the CDU. I feel that Merkel had a hand in that by extinguishing any up and coming voices in the CSU with faux scandals.
I was told by a German, familiar with AfD from its inception, that infiltrators have managed to eject the key founders & taken over. The effect of this is that AfD is no longer what it is widely perceived to be.
AfD was originally founded as a Euro-sceptic liberal party in the wake of the Euro crisis. The party has indeed transformed since then, becoming basically what the CDU was a few generations ago – lightly nationalist, pragmatic, opposed to mass migration. Everybody knows this, nobody is confused about it.
Stereotypically, naivety is not the first word that would come to one´s mind to describe the long-serving head of a German secret service. And yet I can´t find a better expression for Mr. Maaßen. His criticism of the chancelleress would perhaps be more persuasive if he hadn´t served her for six years, including three years after the summer of 2015. Calling our rulers "ecosocialists" or "neosocialists" is a take so boomerish that I am at a loss for words. Just today he called the AfD a left party because... wait for it.... socialism. Und nun sage ich kein Wort mehr.
Totally agree, Maaßen is almost an archetypal boomer.
My parents are 80 years-old and diehard Democrats out here in California. I love to call my dad a Mercedes Commie, because he lives in a 4000 sf house, owns classic cars and motorcycles, yet keeps voting for the Democrats because "They care about us working people and the poor."
However, recently, my dad seems to be undergoing some sort of epiphany as prices spiral out of control, even admitting the Ukraine funding was a horrible idea and that California is on the wrong track with our "green energy " policies, which seem planned to create blackouts.
When Germany starts doing rolling blackouts because of your de-industrialization, I'm pretty sure your parents will flee the CDU. Hopefully, enough people will wake up,l before it is too late for Germany, because the US is gone.
...and the challenge of making Syrians into good German citizens.
On one hand I cant see how they will be allowed to win. On the other hand, they have to win. They have to.
A quote that I think is highly pertinent here is the following from Mark Steyn: "If respectable politicians are forbidden to raise certain subjects, the voters will turn to unrespectable ones."
Not that AfD are unrespectable, just Afuggalu, at least in the view of "respectable" politicians.
Mark Steyn is currently in need of much support as on 16 January in Washington DC, after many years of the "justice system" dragging its heels, he will be defending himself against Michael Mann's iniquitous defamation case. Following this, he will have to face OFCOM in the UK High Court as a result of raising on British TV the thorny issues of covid vaccine damage and the scandal of the continuing sex-trafficking of young girls in various British cities - totally ignored by the MSM. Both issues TPTB would rather not be aired in public.
Mann’s case against Mark is frivilous and has only lasted this long because it’s in DC (like the Jan 6 fake prosecutions). CJ Hopkins is going through something similar in Germany: if your satire hits too close to home for TPTB they will lawfare you.
Typo near the end of footnote 1.
thanks as always
If you welcome corrections, I think the third sentence should read "at an all-time high".
Also "Geramny".
Obvious a typo, yet wondering what it would mean if it were a word...
Also "Wert"...
The German electorate has a lot of hang-ups due to history, but the number of migrant rapes, murders and terrorist atrocities will continue to grow until, when every German's daughter has been raped by a Syrian, voter psychology will move sharply rightward. It will take another couple of years.
As a casual observer from afar, the parliamentary system of government looks like herding cats.
I'm not to distressed when our legislative body gets nothing done, it's when they actually agree to accomplish something that I worry. It never seems to make my life better.
I'd rather be herding cats than, I don't know, being stomped by a golem.
Bingo
Hopefully, the populists and conservatives can overcome the cultural elites who control the media, universities, and unions and corporations that benefit from big government
The MSM like in the UK is in the pocket of the left and sponsored by the EU as its propaganda arm, unless governments introduce controls on media, so that they cannot be politically biased, and in that I'd like to see anyone in the media to have to declare their votes and a political statement of their political beliefs so that the public can check what agenda the people "pushing" the "news" have.