Photographer: Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images
Two regional ballots next month will mark the unofficial start of Germany’s campaign sprint to the federal election on Sep. 26. That in turn will be the occasion for a new leader to take over from Angela Merkel, after her 16 years as chancellor of the European Union’s largest country and economy. In short: It’s an important year.
Unfortunately, this also means that international readers interested in European politics are in for some confusion and frustration in the coming months. At least that’s my extrapolation from the two other German elections I covered, in 2013 and 2017. How German politics works, what matters and what doesn’t, and how policy might eventually change: All of this is hard to divine, much less convey, especially to “Anglo-Saxons.”
Technically, the German system isn’t uniquely baffling. Austria and Belgium, for example, are also federal states with parliamentary systems, proportional representation, and lots of quirky conventions on top. But the policy machine of Berlin, thanks to its relative weight in the EU and beyond, is seen as more important to suss out than, say, Vienna’s.
The difficulties start with personalities and style. In the U.S., U.K. or France, politicians (with monikers like “The Donald,” “BoJo,” “Jupiter,” etc.) tend to be colorful and the political options (left, right, populist, internationalist) on full display. By contrast, Germany’s mainstream politicians tend to be so drab and woolly you’d think they were doing it on purpose.
They actually might be. Historians such as Oxford University’s Timothy Garton Ash think Germans distrust passion and soaring oratory in politics because it still evokes the Nazi era. “Because of Hitler, the palette of contemporary German political rhetoric is deliberately narrow, cautious and boring,” he’s written.
The result is politicians like Armin Laschet, the new boss of the center-right Christian Democrats, or Olaf Scholz, the candidate for the center-left Social Democrats. Both have the charisma of a middle-management bookkeeper and more arms (“On the one hand … and on the other …”) than the Indian goddess Durga.
Their hairsplitting centrism has another source, however. It’s the centrality of coalitions in the German system. This means that any politician must collaborate in some form with adversaries. Scholz, for example, is in Merkel’s cabinet as finance minister. So he’s running against the Christian Democrats of Laschet and Merkel even as he’s governing with them. That’s confusing even for Germans.
Moreover, coalition geometry has become more complicated in the past generation. Postwar West Germany in effect had three political blocs: the Christian Democrats and their Bavarian sister party, with the color black; the Social Democrats, in red; and the pro-business Free Democrats, with yellow.
In the 1980s the environmental Greens joined this system. Then, after reunification, the descendants of East Germany’s communists entered parliament, later calling themselves The Left and picking a darker hue of red. More recently, the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) joined in, with blue (though it’s a pariah that none of the other parties will partner with).
That leaves a lot of potential combinations in both the federal parliament and the 16 regional assemblies. And this is where German wonkery becomes incomprehensible to outsiders. The argot teems with color puns: A red-yellow-green coalition is a traffic light, a black-green one a kiwifruit, black-yellow-green would be Jamaica (after that country’s flag), and so on.
The most important thing to watch for this year is the next color combination in the federal government. A red-red-green government — that is, an all-left union of Social Democrats, The Left and Greens — would amount to a mini-revolution, and a disaster. But there appears to be no mathematical chance of that, because polls consistently show the three left parties jointly getting fewer than half the Bundestag seats.
This all but assures that the center-right blacks, as the strongest bloc, will lead a coalition. And their body language of late has leaned toward teaming up with the increasingly popular Greens to replace the Social Democrats. So the next German government could be a kiwifruit.
There was a time when this combination would have been unthinkable — the blacks’ original base was the clergy, the Greens were tree-hugging, free-loving hippies. These days, however, this coalition would be much less shocking. And that has to do with Germany’s federalism.
Germany’s second (but not “upper” in the Anglo-Saxon sense) house is the Bundesrat, or “federal council.” Unlike the U.S. Senate with its individually elected members, this assembly seats the 16 regional governments. But those administrations are also composed of coalitions, so that the color palette looks even more motley (see below).
As you can see, the three major camps are already collaborating with one another somewhere. So they have an incentive to avoid alienating each other too much. Moreover, each is present in enough regional governments to form potential majorities in the second chamber, with the power to block bills coming in from the Bundestag. This is another reason why policy change in Germany is usually incremental. As any painter knows, a palette in which all colors are mixed eventually becomes mud-brown.
So what will happen in the run-up to Sep. 26? The main relay events will be several state elections, starting on March 14 with Baden-Wuerttemberg (currently governed by a kiwifruit coalition, but with the Greens in the lead) and Rhineland-Palatinate (a traffic light). In theory, these ballots could change the balance of power in the Bundesrat, but that looks unlikely.
In practice, they’ll be seen as early barometers of the national mood. But the analysis tends to get obtuse. Every state is different — especially between what used to be West and East Germany — and nobody really knows whether any given regional ballot says more about local or federal politics.
Worse, there’s no equivalent of America’s midterms — one big day with many simultaneous elections — that could serve as a reliable bellwether. Instead, there’s a “drip drip” of little results, says Jeff Rathke, president of the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies in Washington.
My advice is to keep squinting at the overall hue of the national palette. It’ll always tend toward mud-brown. But a black-green pattern is also becoming discernable. As you see in the Bundesrat chart, the two are already cohabiting monogamously in two state governments and in a menage-a-trois in three more. So they’re used to each other.
If Christian Democrats and Greens convince voters that they can finally reconcile ecology (Greens) and economy (blacks), they could together dominate the zeitgeist for years. They’d have to compromise on a lot, but that’s what German politicians do.
Overall, I’d say that German policy will become slightly more fiscally dovish, ecologically hawkish, pro-European and anti-Russian. As ever, there will be no sudden moves or big leaps — unless, of course, the world around Germany changes radically, which can’t be ruled out.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Moe is set to speak in the city of Yorkton about affordability measures this morning before travelling to the nearby village of Theodore for an event with the local Saskatchewan Party candidate.
NDP Leader Carla Beck doesn’t have any events scheduled, though several party candidates are to hold press conferences.
On Thursday, Moe promised a directive banning “biological boys” from using school changing rooms with “biological girls” if re-elected.
The NDP said the Saskatchewan Party was punching down on vulnerable children.
Election day is Oct. 28.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 18, 2024.
REGINA – Saskatchewan Party Leader Scott Moe is promising a directive banning “biological boys” from using school changing rooms with “biological girls” if re-elected, a move the NDP’s Carla Beck says weaponizes vulnerable kids.
Moe made the pledge Thursday at a campaign stop in Regina. He said it was in response to a complaint that two biological males had changed for gym class with girls at a school in southeast Saskatchewan.
He said the ban would be his first order of business if he’s voted again as premier on Oct. 28.
It was not previously included in his party’s campaign platform document.
“I’ll be very clear, there will be a directive that would come from the minister of education that would say that biological boys will not be in the change room with biological girls,” Moe said.
He added school divisions should already have change room policies, but a provincial directive would ensure all have the rule in place.
Asked about the rights of gender-diverse youth, Moe said other children also have rights.
“What about the rights of all the other girls that are changing in that very change room? They have rights as well,” he said, followed by cheers and claps.
The complaint was made at a school with the Prairie Valley School Division. The division said in a statement it doesn’t comment on specific situations that could jeopardize student privacy and safety.
“We believe all students should have the opportunity to learn and grow in a safe and welcoming learning environment,” it said.
“Our policies and procedures align with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code.”
Asked about Moe’s proposal, Beck said it would make vulnerable kids more vulnerable.
Moe is desperate to stoke fear and division after having a bad night during Wednesday’s televised leaders’ debate, she said.
“Saskatchewan people, when we’re at our best, are people that come together and deliver results, not divisive, ugly politics like we’ve seen time and again from Scott Moe and the Sask. Party,” Beck said.
“If you see leaders holding so much power choosing to punch down on vulnerable kids, that tells you everything you need to know about them.”
Beck said voters have more pressing education issues on their minds, including the need for smaller classrooms, more teaching staff and increased supports for students.
People also want better health care and to be able to afford gas and groceries, she added.
“We don’t have to agree to understand Saskatchewan people deserve better,” Beck said.
The Saskatchewan Party government passed legislation last year that requires parents consent to children under 16 using different names or pronouns at school.
The law has faced backlash from some LGBTQ+ advocates, who argue it violates Charter rights and could cause teachers to out or misgender children.
Beck has said if elected her party would repeal that legislation.
Heather Kuttai, a former commissioner with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission who resigned last year in protest of the law, said Moe is trying to sway right-wing voters.
She said a change room directive would put more pressure on teachers who already don’t have enough educational support.
“It sounds like desperation to me,” she said.
“It sounds like Scott Moe is nervous about the election and is turning to homophobic and transphobic rhetoric to appeal to far-right voters.
“It’s divisive politics, which is a shame.”
She said she worries about the future of gender-affirming care in a province that once led in human rights.
“We’re the kind of people who dig each other out of snowbanks and not spew hatred about each other,” she said. “At least that’s what I want to still believe.”
Also Thursday, two former Saskatchewan Party government members announced they’re endorsing Beck — Mark Docherty, who retired last year and was a Speaker, and Glen Hart, who retired in 2020.
Ian Hanna, a speech writer and senior political adviser to former Saskatchewan Party premier Brad Wall, also endorsed Beck.
Earlier in the campaign, Beck received support from former Speaker Randy Weekes, who quit the Saskatchewan Party earlier this year after accusing caucus members of bullying.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 17, 2024.
REGINA – Saskatchewan‘s provincial election is on Oct. 28. Here’s a look at some of the campaign promises made by the two major parties:
Saskatchewan Party
— Continue withholding federal carbon levy payments to Ottawa on natural gas until the end of 2025.
— Reduce personal income tax rates over four years; a family of four would save $3,400.
— Double the Active Families Benefit to $300 per child per year and the benefit for children with disabilities to $400 a year.
— Direct all school divisions to ban “biological boys” from girls’ change rooms in schools.
— Increase the First-Time Homebuyers Tax Credit to $15,000 from $10,000.
— Reintroduce the Home Renovation Tax Credit, allowing homeowners to claim up to $4,000 in renovation costs on their income taxes; seniors could claim up to $5,000.
— Extend coverage for insulin pumps and diabetes supplies to seniors and young adults
— Provide a 50 per cent refundable tax credit — up to $10,000 — to help cover the cost of a first fertility treatment.
— Hire 100 new municipal officers and 70 more officers with the Saskatchewan Marshals Service.
— Amend legislation to provide police with more authority to address intoxication, vandalism and disturbances on public property.
— Platform cost of $1.2 billion, with deficits in the first three years and a small surplus in 2027.
—
NDP
— Pause the 15-cent-a-litre gas tax for six months, saving an average family about $350.
— Remove the provincial sales tax from children’s clothes and ready-to-eat grocery items like rotisserie chickens and granola bars.
— Pass legislation to limit how often and how much landlords can raise rent.
— Repeal the law that requires parental consent when children under 16 want to change their names or pronouns at school.
— Launch a provincewide school nutrition program.
— Build more schools and reduce classroom sizes.
— Hire 800 front-line health-care workers in areas most in need.
— Launch an accountability commission to investigate cost overruns for government projects.
— Scrap the marshals service.
— Hire 100 Mounties and expand detox services.
— Platform cost of $3.5 billion, with small deficits in the first three years and a small surplus in the fourth year.
—
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct .17, 2024.
