Three scenarios for the Bundestag

The FDP could win big should there be new elections. Their tactics could also backfire.

First, the FDP might succeed in what they apparently are trying to do, ie. playing the Trump card. They are trying to win the votes of people with a liberal view of economics, plus people with rightist views on society topics in the new elections probably taking place in February.

FDP doing the splits

That might work, at least in the short term. If the FDP gets above 15 %, they will almost be in a position to choose their partner: CDU/CSU or SPD-Green party. In the long term however, it will be difficult to keep up “doing the splits” (as they say in German). The FDP might end up losing on both ends and vanish from the political scene. Also, this might fail even in the short term and the FDP would lose the new elections.

German federal election Results by Bundestag seats Wikimedia Furfur CC BY-SA 4.0

Results from September 2017 (Wikimedia Furfur CC BY-SA 4.0)

A second, more tactically sound scenario would see the FDP campaigning mainly on the right edge, trying to get even more protest votes in the new elections than they got in September. Whereas the CDU with Angela Merkel would take care of the voters that are afraid of instability and want to vote for a moderate big party. This scenario might end up giving the CDU/CSU + FDP an absolute majority, thus avoiding them the complicated negotiations with the Green party.

CDU-SPD – really a surprise?

In the long term however, again, the future of such a rightist FDP is unclear and probably not very bright. Plus, a CDU-CSU-FDP government would pave the way for an agreement within the progressive camp. In 2021, we might see a “Red-Red-Green” government, something many progressive people have been hoping for.

A third scenario would still be worse for the FDP in the short term. After all, it was them who dropped out of the negotiations with the CDU, CSU and Green party, obviously hoping for a better result in new elections. This might backfire in the case of new elections. If the German voters, for fear of instability, turn towards the big parties, the result might be a coalition of SPD and CDU.

It may also backfire without elections, if the SPD, unlike what they said til now, agrees to negotiate with the CDU and ends up again forming a government with them. For sure there’s a lot of reasons why both big parties don’t like that scenario. However I never took the SPD’s claim they would never go with the CDU at face value. Not that I would like it, but another “big coalition” in 2018 or even in 2017 wouldn’t surprise me.

What do you think?


TTIP almost officially dead

It should not come as a surprise (not to me at least, see below). The news from the last two days, although sometimes contradictory, mean that giving up on TTIP is acceptable to the political elites in Berlin, Paris, and ultimatey in Brussels.

First Sigmar Gabriel stating TTIP is dead in the water, Jean Claude Juncker’s spokesperson still assuring that the negociations are going on. Then François Hollande’s minister declaring they will officially ask to bury the whole thing, Angela Merkel and the US insisting this cannnot be

Champagne for the anti-TTIP NGOs and civil society! (Filaos / CC-BY-SA 3.0)

Champagne for the anti-TTIP NGOs and civil society! (Filaos / CC-BY-SA 3.0)

Whatever will be said during the weeks to come, there’s no way back: once an end to the negotiations has been declared as a possible outcome, nothing can prevent this doomed project from going all the way down. This is different from the many critics asking for – not announcing! – the end of negociations. Different also from Social-democrats and Greens stating that TTIP “should be abandoned if …” This is: “We can drop it.” It will be dropped – and very soon, dropped like a hot potato.

I’m not surprised. I always told people I thought TTIP was basically a lost cause, since I learned that the expected economical benefits were officially deemed ridiculously low (remember, something like less than one percent of GDP growth over ten years). Of  course, it was important to fight against it with all kinds of arguments. But basically, it was a flawed project insofar as the elites thought of selling it to the people as a project that would increase their welfare.

Why did the EU elites fail?

True, TTIP would have been economically beneficial to some sectors and some countries – and to most of those people the elites are having lunch with. But it was obvious that the big economical advantages for the average European – or American, for that – were simply not there. As for other arguments – strengthening the transatlantic bond – the elites were not prepared to fight for them. So, from the beginning, TTIP has been what it is now for everybody to see: a doomed project. Just one more little push, and all will agree and give up on it. Champagne!

Is this only good news? What does it mean for the future political course of the European Union? I’ll write that up for a woxx editorial and post it here when finished.


Some of my former woxx articles about TTIP:

From 2014, after a lecture by Raoul Marc Jennar:
Freihandel und TTIP: Der Waffenlieferant

Recently, on what a “good” TTIP would be:
Schiedsgerichte und Politik: Der iTTIP-Traum

Recently, strengths and weaknesses of the TTIP criticism:
Plattform gegen CETA und TTIP
: Bedrohlich, aber wahr

1989 Project – Preliminary remarks

Robin Okey: The Demise of Communist East Europe: 1989 in Context

Robin Okey: The Demise of Communist East Europe: 1989 in Context

This book I got for my project after doing some online research. I got it as – hopefully – the best available analysis that puts the events of 1989 in a context. Context of time, reaching from the nationalist movements of the 19th century through the hopes and failures of the interwar period and the communist period, right into the present. Context of space, insofar that the story of 1989 can be told as “poor eastern Europeans against the communist beast”, but can also be seen as differing national societies with differing histories, differing structures and differing internal regime crisises.

This isn’t meant to deny that the external context of crisis of the “Warsaw pact”’s foundations played a decisive role. I believe however that, in order to understand the events of 1989, one has to look at them in their national context, as they were perceived by most of the actors at that time – rather than only analyzing them with hindsight as if they were meant to necessarily lead to the known end (of “communism”). An additional benefit of that approach will be to understand the present of eastern european countries not so much as a parallel “post-communist” evolution starting from the year 1989, but to stress the continuities of economical, social and ethnic matters that have shaped politics in that region long before 1945, and seemingly are there to stay.

Looking back at 1989 to assess the present situation in Eastern Europe: Victor Orbán was a Hungarian student leader 25 years ago.

Looking back at 1989 to assess the present situation in Eastern Europe: Victor Orbán was a Hungarian student leader 25 years ago.

A book and a game

I plan to read the book, play the historical simulation game named “1989: Dawn of Freedom” and get a feeling for the things that happened in those days. I will then write an account mixing game elements and historical account – something I did some years ago for the anniversary of the end of the Soviet Union and the Cold War (“Jouer les rouges”, 23.12.2011, in French). Clearly, a game cannot be as reliable a source as an academic study. However, it helps familiarizing with the events and the forces in play. Also, by raising questions about how the game designer translates (or leaves out) factors, circumstances and events found in the book and other sources, one gets a feeling for the possible divergencies in interpreting the events of 1989. Anniversaries are often an opportunity to celebrate the mainstream view of historical events – this will be no different. That alone would justify me spending time and energy on the subject.

An additional, although less important, incentive will be the ways the events of 1989 are related to China. Obviously, there are the protests of Tiananmen, brutally ended in June of that year. This was followed by a stabilization of the “Communist” regime that has lasted until now. The game is focussed on eastern Europe and includes a “Tiananmen track” only as a “gamey” feature, that is not part of the competitive reenactement that gives it a pedagocical value.

From Miss Liberty to the Tank Man: During the demise of European Communism, Tiananmen was only a sideshow. But comparing change and immobility here and there is instructive.

From Miss Liberty to the Tank Man: During the demise of European Communism, Tiananmen was only a sideshow. But comparing change and immobility here and there is instructive.

Anyway, the most interesting relationship is not the coincidence in time, but the fact that China started in a state that might be seen as less ripe for a reform than eastern Europe. Since Tiananmen however, Chinese “Communism” has walked on a path that might have been taken by eastern European and Soviet reform communists. Surprisingly, the combination of economical reforms and political immobility (see for example my review of the Deng Xiaoping biography by Felix Lee, in German) has evolved much beyond what had been done in Europe in the years preceding 1989. Comparing the challenges here and there, then and now, promises to be gratifying: Why did the economical reforms give consistent results in China but not in the Soviet area? What can be learnt from the events of 1989 – either from the perspective of those who want to preserve the dominance of the Communist party or the perspective of those who dream of its demise? In the book as well as in the minds of the game designers and, no doubt, in those of the Chinese leaders of today, there’s a recurring quote from Alexis de Tocqueville (relating to Ancien Régime France):

“… the most critical moment for bad governments is the one which witnesses their first steps toward reform.”

Finally there’s another personal reason to be attracted towards the subject of 1989: Being born in the 1960s, I have witnessed the era before and the one after that fateful year for an approximately equal amount of time. Unlike many younger friends, I remember clearly how it felt to be a progressive or even a Socialist and to have an assertive Communist movement as your competitor and partner. Those first 25 years of my life shape the way I look towards the actions of Western countries today, be it invading foreign countries, spying on and harassing their own citizens and building walls against people fleeing from their countries.

My generation – half cold, half free?

The walls, then and now - justified as a way to protect us!?

The walls, then and now – justified as a way to protect us!?

During the cold war, those who didn’t wanna choose between freedom and social justice opposed the cynism of the Communists arguing that Western freedom was just a fake. We felt that we were right to criticize the Soviet interventions from Hungary to Afghanistan, the suppression of opponents by the KGB and the Stasi and, as a symbol of the inhumanity of the eastern European Communism, the Berlin Wall and the people shot while passing the frontier.

We were right to criticize. We were wrong to hopes that the end of Communism and of the Cold War would bring along a better world. Clearly, I do not regret the presence of Communism, which in part can be seen as a perversion of socialist ideas. But I may have been over optimistic regarding the possibilities of a “free world”. Or maybe, there was a potential for a better world that has not – not yet? – been realized. The question then would be: What went wrong in 1989?

Working in the lobby of the Hotel Rosatsch, view on the garden with squirrels and redstarts.

Working in the lobby of the Hotel Rosatsch, view on the garden with squirrels and redstarts.

About me thinking and writing, seeing and shooting, plus going to China

This is the first post of my blog “2.0”. I started with a little WordPress blogging about music (Vill Harmonie) almost two years ago. Meanwhile I did collect a lot of ideas on what my “future blog” would be. This now is the real thing.

Calling it “.0” means that I’m starting to post, but am not yet satisfied with the looks and the details. Some weeks from now, I’ll hopefully reach level “2.1” ;-)

More on this, and the stuff mentioned in the title, will come later. Soon!