On a day when the acquittal of Donald Trump and the chaos in the Democratic Party leads to a sense of despair for the future of liberal democracy, it’s natural to avert one’s gaze. Turning to Europe instead offers a different perspective, but not necessarily a more encouraging one.
Today’s news is from Thuringia, in central Germany. A little over three months ago it acquired the sad distinction of becoming the first German state since the Second World War in which far left and far right won a majority of the vote between them.
Since then, its politicians have been trying to put together a new government. Yesterday they succeeded – after a fashion.
You can read my report on the election result here. Basically the three parties that had supported the outgoing government – far left, centre-left and Greens – lost their joint majority, winning in total 42 of the 90 seats.
Opposite them were the centre-right Christian Democrats (CDU) with 21 seats and the far right Alternative for Germany (AfD) with 22. Despite occasional murmurings from its more right-leaning members, the CDU has consistently rejected any co-operation with AfD; in any case, the numbers left that combination also short of a majority.
In the middle, holding the balance of power, were the liberals (FDP), who just scraped into the state parliament with five seats. (The colored diagram at Le Petit Journal makes the position clear.)
With liberals and centre-right both refusing to countenance a deal with the far left, there was a deadlock. When parliament opened yesterday, sitting premier Bodo Ramelow, from the far-left Left party, put himself forward for re-election, with the support of the Social Democrats and Greens. On the first ballot, needing an absolute majority, he had 43 votes to 25 for AfD’s candidate and 22 abstentions.
Voting was by secret ballot, so it’s not possible to say exactly who voted which way, but clearly the CDU and FDP, with 26 MPs between them, had mostly abstained, with a handful of defectors.
On the second ballot, also needing an absolute majority, Ramelow got closer: 44 to 22, with 24 abstentions. Close, but not quite close enough.
On the third ballot, with the requirement for an absolute majority dropped, FDP leader Thomas Kemmerich threw his hat in the ring. AfD switched its support to him, and he won with 45 votes against Ramelow’s 44 and one abstention.
FDP and CDU both deny that they have broken the taboo against negotiating with AfD. And there is some logic to their position: if Kemmerich has not actually offered the far right anything in return for its support, it’s not obvious what harm is done by him taking office. Although he represents the smallest party in the parliament, its position in the middle of the spectrum makes him a logical choice.
The problem, however, comes with the question of just how Kemmerich expects to govern. Since the Left and AfD have the numbers to bring down his government at any time if they work together, he must ultimately depend on the support, if only tacit, of one or other of them. (And the fact that he only had 45 votes in the ballot, not the 48 of the combined FDP-CDU-AfD strength, indicates that his position is already precarious.)
And here the example of the United States returns. Supporters of democracy and inhabitants of the mainstream generally are being put to the choice of whose support they will accept in a pinch – far left or far right. It’s never a comfortable choice, but on both sides of the Atlantic I think the last few years have shown the far left to be less of a danger.
The national leadership of both the FDP and CDU are clearly uncomfortable with what their Thuringian colleagues have done. But while some of them have called on the Left, SPD and Greens to support Kemmerich, none of them seem to be arguing that he should have negotiated a coalition with them in the first place.
Yet if the far right is to be kept out of the tent, a fresh election is the only other option. CDU leader Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer has suggested exactly that, and it this stage it looks quite likely. But even if it solves the problem this time, there is no guarantee it always will: at some point the problem, and the choice, will recur.
Ramelow had been premier of Thuringia for five years; there’s no suggestion that the state had edged towards totalitarianism in that time. The Left, like similar parties across much of Europe, has become part of the routine of German democracy.
As I’ve said before, I see no reason in principle why AfD cannot one day be tamed in the same way. But that day has not yet arrived. In the current state of the world, this is a bad time to be making concessions to the far right or breaching the firewall keeping it from power – which Germany, due to its historical experience, has maintained more dutifully than most.
Thuringia’s liberals and conservatives are supping with the devil, with the usual attendant dangers.
10 thoughts on “Meanwhile, in Thuringia”
> “if Kemmerich has not actually offered the far right anything in return for its support, it’s not obvious what harm is done by him taking office”
Exactly, and analogous to US liberals’ and progressives’ recent angst over the alt-right-adjacent podcaster Joe Rogan endorsing Bernie Sanders on economic-populist/ nationalist grounds.
You can’t actually reject votes from people you detest (except in rare circumstances, eg granting a pair in the legislature) and it has the downside that those people may then go and give their votes instead to politicians whose policies you detest even more. But it’s not “accepting” the votes that’s morally problematic, but offering some concessions in return. Which, eg, Sanders didn’t do to Rogan. No quid-pro-quo.
Granted, there’s still a danger that you might say publicly “Yeah, well, we’ll take your votes but don’t expect us to soften our principled policy on X in return” but still – quite possibly unconsciously – you end up soft-pedalling if not your policy on X, then at least your enforcement of it. This seems to have happened to British Labour after relying on the support of Muslim voters, many of them very socially conservative on feminism and gay rights. Quite a few imams whose views on LGBT and women’s rights would never survive a Tim Farron-level degree scrutiny seem to have been feted because they are “community leaders”.
Thanks Tom – yes, I think that’s right. Even without any explicit quid pro quo, there’s a risk of moral contamination, which may range from negligible to significant depending on the circumstances. But this is a subject the Germans are extremely sensitive about. Kemmerich has now said he will resign and seek a fresh election – I might write some more about it on Monday.
Here’s America’s second-most left-wing online journal (after “Jacobin”) praising Sanders’ attracting Rogan’s support as a good thing:
“… Bernie Sanders is capable of neutralizing Trump’s populist, anti-establishment message. He’s got a phenomenal base of committed organizers, a powerful message and a vision, and people respect his authenticity. He can even peel away people like Joe Rogan who might seem more naturally inclined to vote for Trump…”
– Nathan J Robinson, “Can We Get Real Now, Please? Look, Bernie is going to win this primary. Continuing to fight only helps Trump.” Current Affairs (23 February 2020)
That’s certainly the view from the Sanders camp, and it’s not impossible that they’re right. But the argument from Sanders’s inevitability looks a lot shakier after South Carolina.
More on the vexed question of supporters you don’t like:
“My fanbase goes from far-left to far-right, it creeps into places where I’m not even comfortable having fans, quite frankly,’ he [Vermin Supreme] said. ‘But I can’t really help that, except denounce their ideologies from time to time.’…”
Daniel M Bring, “‘I’ve gotten TikTok famous all of a sudden’: Vermin Supreme’s quest to win hearts, minds and the Libertarian primaries.” Spectator USA (18 March 2020), https://spectator.us/vermin-supreme-quest-hearts-libertarian-primaries/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why is it a secret ballot?
That is a very good question. I don’t know what their reasoning is; the general idea is that it removes the scope for bribery or intimidation, but at the cost (which I regard as unacceptably high) of weakening accountability.
May be a German tradition. At federal level the Bundestag uses a secret ballot to elect the Chancellor. Adenauer won by a single vote the first time. Asked whether he had voted for himself, he answered that he would have been hypocritical not to!
Curiously though I think an up-or-down motion of confidence is by roll call… but don’t quote me on that