It's been an interesting week for elections around the world: in the past seven days, voters in Norway, New Zealand, Afghanistan and Germany have all gone to the polls. I don't know if we know much about what has happened in Afghanistan yet, but as far as that country is concerned, I'm just happy that their process was unmarred by serious violence.
From a left perspective, the results of the three elections in the Western countries weren't half bad. Norway moved from centre-right to centre-left, with the Red-Green Alliance of Jens Stoltenberg promising to pull out Norway's tiny contingent of troops in Iraq.
In New Zealand, Helen Clark matched Tony Blair by winning a third consecutive election. Here, by a slender margin, the centre-left Labour Party seems very likely to stay in power. The conservative National Party had significant gains, which ought to please my friend John, but they seem to have fallen just short of the mark. The National Party had promised closer ties to the United States.
And yesterday, I am happy to say, the German left did surprisingly well. Yes, all of the news this morning is about the mess in Germany, with any number of unstable coalitions in the offing. But the real story that isn't getting covered is not the late surge by the Social Democratic Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, nor the late collapse of the Christian Democrat candidate, Angela Merkel. The story is that the three left wing parties (the SPD -- Social Democrats, the Greens, and the "Linkspartei" -- a coalition of SPD defectors and some former communists) outpolled the free market conservatives. 50.8% of the voters cast their ballots for the left, despite predictions that this election would lead to the triumph of the centre-right.
The right-wing in this country is bemoaning what they see as a lost opportunity for Germans to do the right thing, come to their senses, and begin implementing American style capitalism. The Wall Street Journal laments:
German voters may not again get quite as good a shot at installing a government that can bring about real economic reforms. Voters balked at real change at the last minute. In the words of economist Norbert Walter, "they wanted someone to wash their fur, but at the same time not get it wet." Most Germans understand that their country has to modernize in the long run, but, says Thomas Kielinger, a writer for the newspaper Die Welt, "when push comes to shove many are reluctant to go for the candidate who tells it like it is."
The late economist Mancur Olson argued that the downfall of democracy would be its tendency to calcify into special-interest gridlock. Germany's extensive welfare state has created millions of voters who fear the loss of any benefits. Combine that with voters in eastern Germany who cling to outmoded notions of state support and you have an formidable challenge to bring about real reform.
Gosh, that's not how I'd read it. As a committed socialist, I reject the equation that suggests reform=free markets - social protections. Though of course I would have liked a more resounding show by the left, I am happy that so many Germans are clearly unwilling to abandon the most vulnerable members of society.
I haven't done much checking in the German press (my German language skills are passable but not terrific), but I have to wonder if Hurricane Katrina played a part in the comeback by the Social Democrats (who were widely predicted to lose to the conservatives by a substantial margin). Visions of poverty and a poor response by underfunded, underprepared government agencies may, just may, have frightened some Germans. After all, in the aftermath of Katrina, it's more difficult than usual to argue that Americans have the most efficient government in the world. Some Germans may have looked at the images from the Gulf and said "That's what happens when people are abandoned by their government." Katrina is a reminder that while private sector charity has its place, it can't build levees and conduct mass rebuilding operations. The public sector must be both the guarantor of people's physical safety and the catalyst for restoration efforts, as no constellation of private charities is able to provide the same services. I'm told that Katrina coverage was massive in Europe; I suspect it may have played a small role in the outcome of the German election.
Ultimately, I'm heartened that in countries like Norway, Germany, and New Zealand, those most likely to propose the free-market American model did not do as well as they had hoped. Rather than rebuke the Kiwis, Norwegians, and Germans for their foolishness (as the Wall Street Journal does), we ought to remind ourselves that much of the rest of the world sees increasingly little to admire about our economic system. Katrina exposed the depths of poverty in America to an unprecedented degree. The freest capital markets in the world have done little or nothing for the poor of the Gulf Coast whose plight we have come to know so well. When right-wing politicians abroad ask their citizens to give up generous social protections in order to imitate America, is it any wonder that many of them say, "no thanks"? Or, in the German, "Nein Danke, wir haben eine bessere Idee..."
UPDATE: Larry Elliott in the Guardian says it better than I could:
What the inconclusive vote has shown is that the German people lack enthusiasm - to put it mildly - for the policies that have been pursued by Gerhard Schröder and would be pursued with even more vigour by Angela Merkel. The strong showing by Oskar Lafontaine's Left party is indicative of the deep suspicion German voters have of what to them smacks of a wholesale introduction of the neo-liberal US economic model.
Put simply, Germans don't buy the idea - touted by both Mr Schröder and Ms Merkel - that the way to safeguard Germany's post-war social democratic model is to dismantle it.
To that result, I say, "calloo callay." And if the results aren't entirely frabjous from a socialist perspective, they aren't exactly nearly as frumious as lefties might have feared.
Helen,
You accused the Nat campaign of being homophobic, racist and hateful. I am a financial member of the Nats. I volunteered to help the campaign. Therefore, I am at the very least enabling hate. Think that if you want. But don't expect me not to get mad.
Posted by: John | September 20, 2005 at 09:37 PM
Just look at feministing.org. They've got it down right.
Those are crazy chicks for sure!!!
Posted by: Humbah | September 20, 2005 at 10:50 PM