6 charts to help Americans understand the upcoming German elections
fivethirtyeight.com
fivethirtyeight.com
It is not true that the Left is more liberal. They are more socialist, which is simply not listed in these article's diagrams. A strong socialist pariticipation in Germany results from a huge part of it being under Soviet control for a few decades.
It is also not true that neither top party has aimed at the social system. Both actually do try to minimize it. But they frame it into pro-social-system-wording because otherwise the people would start to fight them.
In terms of climate change we actually found a great way to make a profit from it. Since we are one of the high tech leaders in the world and climate save technologies are usually high tech, we can use that to gain bigger global market shares in many markets that were locked up previously.
Why is 3000€ considered high income? Is that post-tax? Pretax it's less than what Germans would expect with a college degree or higher.
I consider myself liberal, education, high tech focussed. But I would also agree that Islam is political and not just religious. Just look at its history. That statement alone doesn't mean one should fight Islam. The bad thing about hte AfD is that they want to fight Muslems. Educated people of course frown upon discriminating on such a simple fact.
This is an important point which trying to ram non-US political parties into a US-based single left-right spectrum does not account for.
Another important distinction which people miss is "Islam" (the religion) vs "Islamism" (its involvement in politics).
I agree that there is a distinction between Islam and Islamism. However I wouldn't say one is political the other religious. In the same way we can't put German parties on a US spectrum, we can't put Islam on a Christian spectrum. For Islam politics and religion are not two separate topics. It's one topic. If there's a distinction for Muslims it is for other factors, which I sadly don't know however. (If a Muslim reads it feel free to educate me on that part. I'm certainly interested)
For Christianity politics and religion used to be as inseparable as they are for Islam today. Not so long ago most heads of state were subject to the Vatican (whether ceremonially or literally) and granted their authority by divine privilege alone.
The separation of church and state in the Christian world is largely a relatively new phenomenon and ultimately dates back to the Peace of Westphalia (the 17th century is much closer to the present day than to the birth of Christianity) which established the counter-intuitive idea that it's okay for other nations to have other religious beliefs than your own.
For many Muslims today, Islam is Islamism, with varying degrees of urgency, but that doesn't mean you can't have Islam without Islamism or that you shouldn't make the distinction. Islam is just lagging behind Christianity when it comes to holy wars and acceptance of other faiths (even other sects of Islam itself). There are plenty of explanations for why that is the case and not few of them at least partially blame the West, but it's an evolution that's still happening in Islam and that needs to happen for Islam to peacefully coexist with other religions and the non-religious.
However despite Germany's faults at least Germany is not Christian by law. The reason Islam doesn't enjoy the same privileges as mainstream Christianity is that Christians are better organised and less sectarian.
The Catholic Church in Germany needs no explanation but the Evangelical Church in Germany is a union of Lutherans, Calvinists and other protestants. The Islamic sects are far too disunited to form an alliance like this. A single Islamic faith group (Ahmadiyya) managed to organise as a public corporation (i.e. a recognised religious group) and they only exist in two out of Germany's 16 states and represent a minority group compared to other Islamic sects.
To give you a better idea, here's the list of recognised religious groups in the most populous state of Germany:
http://www.bmi.bund.de/PERS/DE/Themen/Informationen/Religion...
Most of them are Christian, even including Mennonites and Jehova's Wittnesses. There are also numerous Jewish communities. There's even a Hindu temple. Yet not a single Islamic group. This isn't the result of a Christian bias, it's entirely on the Islamic communities.
In my opinion there are big differences between beeing 'social' and beeing "socialistic". [0]
The big german party SPD and even Die Linke rather fall into the category social than socialist.
[0] https://spfaust.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/socialism-vs-social...
The SPD itself also started out as the socialist-like-communist party in its very early days. Then it became a social-but-not-socialist party, and now it's hard to define any political agenda for them.
Of course your direct political rival is associated with the devil, but for Germany Russia is even a possible political partner, just like the US. So being socialist is not really bad in itself. Many educated people actually have a pro-socialist view on the world here. What probably also need to be considered for non-German readers is this: The word socialist itself has a different meaning. It is more focussed on helping each ohter and helping the poor, than on political agenda. The same way a US citizen wouldn't consider a "Liberal" as a monoply-supporting exploiter, which is a common interpretation of the word "Liberal" here in Germany (which is why the FDP is one of the less strong parties). it's always important to consider that people don't mean the same thing as one would think, when they say such big words.
Ever since I first found the Nolan chart[1], I've always tried to tell people about it, but I think the reason why the distinction doesn't make a ton of sense is because reducing 4 dimensions to 2 will always be lossy, so something is going to get lost. There may be a lot more ways to slice this pie, but the quadrants seem to me to strike the right balance of pragmatism and descriptiveness.
To show its importance even in 2017: In the yesterday's tv confrontation between Merkel and the social-democrats front runner, immigration was the first and longest discussed topic. I believe that even in a country with Germany's history, there has to be a party where people who disagree or are concerned with the recent decisions about immigration should be represented. You would do democracy a disfavor if you try to cut out the AfD or their voters from the public discourse.
I know they have some politicians with quite extreme views which they haven't got rid of. And they will pay the price for that by getting a lot less votes. Maybe it's also since I am not a German and therefore don't follow german domestic policy as close as many Germans do.
Personally I try to imagine the two leading parties in Austria having the same stance on immigration as in Germany. This would end in a disaster for them in the next election, which is shortly after the german election.
Agreed. I dislike them and their views just as much as the next leftist, but they represent the opinions of a (small but) significant share of the German populace, and these ought to be represented by parliament proportionally.
> For example, Petry, who led the moderate wing of the party, said that Germany should reclaim the German word "Volk" from its Nazi connotations, while Höcke, who is an example of the more right-wing views, regularly speaks of the "Fatherland" and "Volk", and has said that Germany should make a "180 degree" turn with regard to its sense of national pride.
You know, they do sound kinda "racist" and "extreme right-wing" from their own words.
> The party has a platform of climate change denial
And also very, very stupid.
It's not much different from what the other parties aim to do. The only real one being, that the AFD wants a hard cap on immigration. If you read media covering the German election you never find them having the, you know, legally binding document of their goals. Because in reality everything is much more tame and realistic. The assaults against parties always happen because someone said something, never do they source what actually is defined by the party.
Höcke said some goddamn stupid shit, that you will barely find anyone agreeing. But his words alone were enough for all the opponents to tarnish AFD's name and it became the Nazi party forever. Last week the AFD split because of that into a new "Alternative Center" just because of that.
I won't vote for them, but how is the want to get blacklisted words like "Volk = People" and "Vaterland = Fatherland" to be reclaimed and used freely again that evil? Nobody in Germany can defend their historic achievements, because their ancestors were criminals. The AFD whishes to reverse that. The climate change part is a thing that the AFD fiercly debated for long inside their own walls, but they never claimed to deny that either. The official statement, is that the blind deactivation of Nuclear energy can lead to skyrocketing electricity prices, where they don't question climate change itself, but the human component in it. By their words, it is not clear whether man had influence or not and to act on something that is not set in stone is foolish.
I don't agree with them on that or will vote for them, but I must defend the them on simply calling them stupid and racist, because they are not, or the words of one or two people are weight more than a legally binding election plan.
I don't think a hardcap on legal immigrants combined with a border partrol to stop illegal ones is Xenophobic. The argument is founded, as Bavaria's social system collapsed for couple of months last year when the big immigration wave came. I'm aginst a border patrol and hard cap, but the AFD is in no way Xenophobic for wanting it the other way.
Of course you can. You're working off the bizarre assumption that a party manifesto is binding in any way whatsoever.
One of the most famous instances is in 2005, when the SPD went into the election with "no sales tax increases", and CDU advocated for "2% sales tax increase". In the end, they formed a coalition, and arrived at the compromise of 3% increase.
Members of the German Bundestag shall be elected in general, direct, free, equal and secret elections. They shall be representatives of the whole people, not bound by orders or instructions, and responsible only to their conscience.
Is the mere introduction of a cap xenophobic? Or is there some set limit on the cap you could have, below which you are xenophobic?
I know the answer is probably 'X type of people want this cap on immigration, therefore the cap on immigration is X-ist!', but just wanted to make sure.
It gets even worse if you apply an immigration cap to refugees and asylum seekers as well, at which point you're saying that the arbitary immigration cap is potentially more important than their survival.
Of course, having positions that violate present law does not necessarily imply xenophobia, but it is quite telling that the AfD only wants refugees that are qualified workers and does not want to give foreign citizens the rights Germans have.
What gives you the idea that the Wahlprogramm is ever legally binding? It's basically a mission statement that primarily serves as advertising and is usually signed off by the party's federal convention.
I suggest you stop reading the advertisement materials and instead listen to the actual statements of the actual politicians. I'm not a big fan of claims of "dog whistling" but you don't even need to look for coded language to find extremely revolting statements made by actual party officials. And no, these things don't become any more palatable in context.
The AfD is ideologically diverse, yes, but there is a significant influence of quite literal nazis, supremacists and xenophobes. You know what you do if your reputation becomes tarnished by extremists you don't wish to associate your movement with? You form a new movement and strongly disassociate yourself from the extremists.
If your party is the new favorite of Reichsbürger, neo-nazis and xenophobic old men, maybe you should actually distance yourself from them if you don't want to be associated with them.
The Left's reputation is tarnished by antifa. The Greens' reputation is tarnished by pedophiles. Why do you think the AfD deserves a free pass?
The AfD also has quite a few extreme policy positions that distinguish them from the mainstream German parties. They want to leave the EU and abolish the Euro. They deny that climate change is man-made.
They want to restrict certain freedoms for muslims and they cling to the traditional view of family.
I was always under the impression that it was more a declaration of intention, to be fulfilled on a best-effort basis. Otherwise, how would coalitions between parties work, if they can't deviate from their program?
Even if it were legally binding, that doesn't preclude making decisions on topics that weren't even covered. In those cases, you can only trust that the party has a consistent ideology they will follow. The AfD seems to be judged more for their ideological tendencies than for any demands they have formally elevated to the party line.
If the Wahlprogramm were legally binding, there would have been plenty of opportunities to sue.
For the record: the reason the Verfassungsschutz might tear into a party is usually because the party harbors anti-constitutional ideas or associates itself with criminal organisations, e.g. the NPD with its neo-nazis or the Left with antifa.
* strengthening the role of the president, weakening the parties (the weak presidential role in Germany is a direct result of the experiences in Nazi Germany)
* reducing the size of the members of parliament
* reducing payments for members of parliament (they currently earn around 10k/month)
* introduction of direct voting (e.g. reducing complex matters to yes/no decisions)
* introduction of a tax wastage crime
* removal of anti-discrimination laws
* higher military budgets
* return to immigration laws where descendence from German bloodlines is needed for naturalization
* higher punishments, especially for the youth
* more surveillance
* anti islam positions
* promoting population growth to counter immigrants
* removing public financial support of daycare
* anti abortion
* lowering tax rates
* forced unpayed labor for long time unemployed
the only left wing positions are:
* pro minimum wage, but no actual numbers given
* guaranteeing more personel in the health care sector
All of this isn't really surprising as the AfD came into life as a right-wing fork of the CDU, the mainstream conservative party in Germany.
As a Swiss I have to comment on this.
First, is this really a right-wing point?
Where I vehemently disagree is with the sentiment carried with the "explanation" of direct democracy that you added.
Every parliament will boil down complex issues to "simple" yes/no decisions. Or how do you imagine a parliament can vote on anything?
Furthermore a right to a referendum is literally just consulting the people for a yes/no vote that already happened in the parliament. In Switzerland you need to collect a certain amount of signatures of voters within 100 days to mandate a public vote on the exact law that was passed by the parliament. Changes in the constitution mandate a referendum.
Another part of Swiss democracy are popular initiatives. You can propose a change to the constitution like adding "The State mandates a minimal wage". If you gather enough signatures the people will vote if they want to add this to the constitution. If it passes, the executive is required to propose laws that implement the change.
[1] = http://www.wahlbeteiligung2013.de/fileadmin/Inhalte/Studien/... - search for "Stadtbericht Hamburg"
I watched most of the federal convention of the AfD and the party basically unifies a number of different political interest groups, including but not limited to literal Nazis. Almost all of these groups are right-wing and almost all of them are nationalist or ethno-nationalist. The moderates are actually almost palatable (their main argument always boils down to "but think of the children") but the party tries very hard to pretend there is no diversity of opinion among its members.
FWIW, the aforementioned moderates are often extremely "conservative" (i.e. queers are destroying society and corrupting our children, gay men are pedophiles, sex education should be abstinence only, etc). There's also a disturbing amount of support for fringe conspiracy theories (chemtrails, holocaust denialism, sovereign citizens aka "Reichsbürger", etc).
Saying "but some of the things some of them say are true" is missing the point. You can't take the AfD seriously because it's a hot mess that is heavily influenced by ideologies that are bordering on being anti-constitutional.
It's like attempting to justify bringing Adolf Hitler into a conversation about healthcare because he's a vegetarian. Yes, vegetarianism might have a place in that discussion, but nobody would expect that to be particularly helpful because he'll likely derail the conversation to say something awful about Jews.
The AfD's official position on so many things is so far off the mark you can't cooperate with them on any detail without suffering their taint on everything else. You can have reasoned discussions about immigration (e.g. how we actually handle immigration has resulted in plenty of problems on all sides) but you can not base it on a stance that is inherently anti-constitutional.
The NPD is more supportive of the lower class. Its politics (nationalism and xenophobia aside) tend to favor the poor, the unemployed and the wage slaves.
The AfD is much more bourgeois. Despite its populist rhetoric its social promises actually tend to focus on working families and traditional "values". It's the CDU to the NPD's Left.
> The truth is, the influx of immigrants
> is a real problem in Germany, although
> in some places is felt more than in others
The AfD is much more socially acceptable than the NPD ever was. It's largely seen as a "protest party" and the general consensus that they have no chance of being part of any government coalition only helps support that.
There is no evidence of the former. In fact, a large part of why Germany has taken so many immigrants compared to other european countries is that the german workforce is stretched thin and needed an influx of young workers. Plus Germany has more infrastructure in place to integrate foreign population.
If we're talking the latter, then that's irrational fear.
Fun fact: There's a commonly held misbelief that the AfD is popular in the East because it's the East but it seems to actually correlate more strongly with lack of ethnic/cultural diversity and low population density.
It is in the elections, cf. for example
> https://www.merkur.de/politik/bundestagswahl-2017-diese-part...
vs. 535 representatives for ~323 million people in the US
The arbitrary capping of the size of the House of Representatives to 435 members is one of the biggest issues I have with the structure of the US legislature.
Because Germany doesn't have a two party system, putting the parties on a simple one-dimensional chart doesn't tell you much.
For example, the Greens are one of the most "socially progressive" parties (think immigration, LGBT, gender theory, feminism) but their positions on social welfare / workers' rights are fairly conservative compared to The Left (which in turn is extremely "pro-worker" to the point of bordering on anti-capitalist but doesn't place as much emphasis on LGBT issues). The Left is also much more strongly anti-war. The Greens also (obviously) place a lot of importance on ecological issues and renewable energy (which in Germany always means anti-nuclear).
The CDU has indeed shifted towards the left under Merkel but the SPD has also previously shifted strongly towards the right under Schröder. In fact the left wing of the SPD split off (that's the WASG mentioned in the footnote) and joined the Left, leaving both major parties left and right of the center. The SPD's campaigning this time is a bit more "left populist" than usual but that seems to be almost entirely strategic (to steer protest voters away from the AfD by offering a "real alternative").
The FDP is generally considered the most "employer-friendly" party and has a history of leaning towards neoliberal ("privatise everything") but has recently marketed itself as more centrist libertarian.
I find it very odd to see both the FDP and CDU described as more conservative than the US Democrats, as well as seeing the FDP described as more conservative than the CDU.
The CDU is probably most tolerant of getting involved in wars and only the Left and Greens take a strong stance against weapons exports but none of them are anywhere near as militarist as the US Democrats (or Republicans). None of the parties could honestly be described as "tough on crime" either. If anything the CDU can be defined as generally being strongly in favour of the status quo.
If Merkel loses (which most likely also means she'll leave CDU politics), the CDU will have an identity crisis. Merkel's "left-leaning" course alienated many right-wing voters, the SPD has become indistinguishable in many aspects thus competing for the centrist voters. The CDU would be expected to snap back to a slightly more conservative, more right wing position but Merkel practically eliminated all possible leadership candidates. Von der Leyen will not be the next Merkel, but all other public figures are either gone already or on their way out.
We're almost guaranteed to end up with another coalition government. It will likely be led by Merkel's CDU. I think we'll also see the AfD reach a two digit number -- I hope for less than that, but less than 5% (which is the minimum for getting any seats) seems unlikely.
Even if you somehow project every single point of discussion into one dimension, isn't this a weird axis? It seems like there are a lot of issues in the US which no sane party argues about in Germany (e.g., separation of state and religion). If you were to do a factor analysis after presenting the same polls to parties in Germany and the US you will probably end up with an axis which neatly separates everything by country...
> I think we'll also see the AfD reach a two digit number -- I hope for less than that, but less than 5% (which is the minimum for getting any seats) seems unlikely.
I hope that you're wrong and at least according to current polls >10% doesn't seem like a forgone conclusion (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestagswahl_2017/Umfragen_u...).
FWIW as I used to be misinformed about this: Germany does not have a meaningful separation of state and religion. We have no state religion so it's not a "Christian nation" strictly speaking but there are a lot of things preventing us from being a secular one:
* the constitution establishes that the German people have a duty to "God"
* recognised (publicly incorporated) churches have special privileges, like enacting taxes on their members, which are collected "for free" by the state
* employees of the Catholic or Protestant churches are subject to church law, which often overrides ordinary labor protections
* Merkel has repeatedly stated that Europe and Germany are defined by Christian values and that her stance on certain topics (e.g. homosexuality) is guided by her Christianity
* we have a blasphemy law that criminalises insults against religious beliefs or deities (rather than individuals or religious groups)
(there are more examples but I think this is sufficient to prove a point)
> I hope that you're wrong and at least according to current polls >10% doesn't seem like a forgone conclusion
So do I, I'm just going by their trajectory in state elections. I don't want them to get a single seat but I know they are still the go-to protest vote and there are a lot of upset voters.