Around the World - Germany: Why the federal elections are important outside of Germany...

Germany has become a dominant force in Europe. Its position has been forged with a strong manufacturing sector that has made it one of the the world's largest exporters. Those exports bring in massive amounts of capital, which Germany then spends primarily in Europe, providing a major source of funds for the economies of other European nations. Furthermore, Germany is also Europe's most populous nation and that makes polling the opinions of  its people seriously relevant to understanding the future of Europe as a whole.

These factors make German economic policy important far beyond the borders of the German federal states and the near future of those policies is now up for debate as Germany goes to the polls for its Federal Elections on 22nd September.

The main contenders for the election are the incumbent Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (CDU), led by Chancellor Angela Merkel, and the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD), led by former Finance Minister Peer Steinbruck. Behind the two biggest parties are three smaller third parties: the Freie Demokratische Partei (FDP), Die Grunen (The Greens) and Die Linke (The Left).

Germany is currently governed by the CDU, led by Chancellor Angela Merkel, in coalition with the FDP. That government is much comparable with the UK's coalition government, an alliance between majority conservatives and junior partner liberals. On coming to power back in 2005, Frau Merkel and the CDU had aimed to bring in a number of conservative and free market reforms - including tax code simplification, tax cuts and reduced public spending (Economist, 2013; BBC, 2005) - however events have largely gotten in the way of attempted reforms.

Initially Chancellor Merkel's time in office began in a grand coalition between the CDU and the SPD, which limited the ability of the CDU to pursue conservative policies. The subsequent financial crisis has since brought further restrictions. However, it also brought political opportunities. Chancellor Merkel has been a prominent player in European Union politics. She has been a strong advocate of a conservative, austerity-based, response to the financial crisis and courtesy of Germany's influential role has managed to get austerity placed at the heart of the EU's response (Vasagar, 2013).

And that role in EU austerity measures is one primary sticking point between the CDU and their major opposition, the SPD. A social democratic party led by Herr Peer Steinbruck, the SPD are Germany's oldest political party, founded with much the same purpose in mind as the UK Labour Party; championing the rights of workers. Herr Steinbruck, whose reputation for 'straight talk' and blunt language seems to have harmed his chances more than helped (BBC, 2013), has been keen to pounce upon Chancellor Merkel's role in EU austerity and push for a more growth oriented strategy.

Like other social democratic parties in Europe - such as the UK Labour Party and the Socialist Party in France - this means reducing or restricting austerity in favour of more public spending. Herr Steinbruck points to the success of the Marshall Plan, implemented following the Second World War, in using massive investment to support the recovery and development of allied nations (BBC, 2013).

The success of one of these parties in establishing or confirming their economic policy in Germany will have a profound affect upon the policies of European nations over the next few years. But that will only happen if either of the main parties can successfully form a coalition. Germany has seen coalition governments after every election since 1949, a product of its electoral system that seeks the stability and representation offered by proportional representation.

That system means that parties have to find things in common on which to work together, in order to gather sufficient support to govern. This is most easily achieved by one of the major parties allying with one of the third parties. The most successful amongst the third parties is the FDP. A free market liberal party, in recent years they have tended towards siding with the CDU - as they currently do in a coalition government - with whom they share economic policies (BBC, 2013).

Opposing those positions are the two other third parties: The Greens and the Left.

The Greens are likely to find common ground with the SPD, with whom they share concerns for social welfare. Important issues for them include the implementation of a national minimum wage, an issue that the SPD has also campaigned on. The Greens also benefit from the general adoption by the other parties of their policy  favouring the abandonment of nuclear power by 2020. The likelihood of Red-Green alliance between the SPD and Greens is increased by both prior alliances at the federal level - having previously governed together between 1998 and 2005 (BBC, 1998) - and recent regional elections where they have formed coalitions.

The other third party, The Left, are a party representing the far left of the political spectrum. While the party has much in common with both the SPD and the Greens, it has also carried an unfortunate reputation as an extremist group. With a history rooted in communist East Germany's governing party, its history since reunification has been mired by its past and by the controversial surveillance of certain party members on suspicion of extremism (Handelsblatt, 2012).

The outcome of this election will be incredibly important to all other European countries and many other countries around the world. From the financial crisis in Europe, to the talks to establish an EU-US free trade agreement (Rawlinson, 2013), to the President of the European Commission's stated belief in the EU's State of the Union debate that the time has come to closer bond the nations of Europe (BBC, 2013), the priorities set by Germany's election will affect the path forward at a crucial time.

However, debates within Germany have veered away from the idea of the country's larger role in European and world affairs (Hewitt, 2013). Germany's role in financial rescue efforts in Europe is a difficult subject, and both sides have preferred to focus on domestic concerns with clearer divides such as employment law and the minimum wage.

Yet the far reaching influence of this upcoming election cannot be denied. Its economic strength, large population, and influence within the European Union, make what happens in Germany relevant to people in many other countries. Like the Italian elections this spring, and the French elections the previous spring, what happens in Germany will have wider consequences.

==========
References:
==========
+ The Economist's 'Angela Merkel: A safe pair of hands'; 14th September 2013.

+ BBC's 'Merkel defends German reform plan'; 12 November 2005.

+ Jeevan Vasagar's 'Angela Merkel's rival accuses her of 'deadly austerity' in TV debate'; in The Telegraph; 1 September 2013.

+ BBC's 'Steinbruck rude finger irks Germans in election run-up'; 13 September 2013.

+ BBC's 'Profile: Peer Steinbruck'; 13 September 2013.

+ BBC's 'German election: Potential coalition "kingmakers"'; 12 September 2013.

+ BBC's 'SPD approves red-green coalition'; 25 October 1998.

+ Handelsblatt's 'CSU-Generalsekretär bringt Verbot der Linken ins Spiel'; 30 January 2012.

+ Kevin Rawlinson's 'NSA row: Merkel rival threatens to suspend EU-US trade talks'; in The Guardian; 26 August 2013.

+ BBC's 'Barroso's state of union: EU must not delay reforms'; 11 September 2013.

+ Gavin Hewitt's 'Europe "on hold" over key German election'; on the BBC; 11 September 2013,

+ Sheila Pulham, Chris Fenn, Garry Blight & Guardian Research Department's 'Left, right, left: how political shifts have altered the map of Europe'; in The Guardian; 9 May 2012.

Around the World - Syria: What must be considered when deciding whether and how to intervene?

Democracy in the UK appeared to be in good health in the past few weeks when Parliament, in tune with public polling, voted against the Government's wish to prepare for a military intervention in Syria (Cowling, 2013). However, not everyone seemed to find the results of this democratic display particularly satisfying.

Mr Paddy Ashdown, former leader of the Liberal Democrats - and Member of the the House of Lords for that party - spoke out against the isolationism he claimed that the outcome displayed (Ashdown, 2013). He and party leader Mr Nick Clegg agreed that Britain should be unafraid to protect liberal values and international law through humanitarian interventions and 'targeted military action' (Clegg, 2013).

The views of these senior figures within Britain's main liberal political party presents a poignant picture about the political orthodoxy when it comes to the role of a modern state within an international community. But, when a country's main liberal party presents intervention as an obvious policy - should conditions be right - it raises an important question: have we become so wrapped up in the question of whether or not to intervene, to ask whether we even have the right to ask that question?

Ashdown and Clegg, and in many ways also the leadership of the Labour Party (Guardian, 2013), hold similar views on international interventions to the Conservatives. Some leading Tories have presented openness to unilateral intervention in Syria - in co-ordination with the United States - as being an integral part of a 'a big open and trading nation' 'upholding the international system' (Mason, 2013).

With all of the parties displaying similar opinions towards intervention, the main debate between the parties, over whether or not to intervene, was essentially overshadowed by a secondary debate. Accompanying the main vote, where Cameron sought permission to involve the UK in the United States' unilateral intervention (BBC, 2013), was a debate over the wording of the grounds upon which Britain would become militarily involved in any intervention. Despite the different wording, the approach of all sides amounted to requiring a clear, legal, internationally sanctioned intervention to be agreed before Parliament would allow for British military action.

While it is positive that one nation is deferring on a unilateral decision in favour of multilateral debate, the international debate - taking place within institutions such as the United Nations and NATO - will however likely focus upon the same principles. The questions asked there will likely be the same as those sovereign nations will be asking themselves, with the same predetermined acceptance of intervention where the right conditions are in place.

More questions need to be aimed at how readily interventions, particularly military solutions, are accepted as an option. It is without doubt that when one country defies, ignores, or rejects international law and human rights to commit terrible crimes, the choice not to intervene takes on terrible weight.

But the opposite, the choice to act becomes no less fraught with danger. Do we use the same sort of aggressive actions to stop rogue nations and bring them back into line with international law as they have used to forge their criminal path - as British Diplomat Robert Cooper (2002) put it:

'Among ourselves, we keep the law but when we are operating in the jungle, we must also use the laws of the jungle.'

Is that the solution? When one country deviates from the course determined by the combined will of the international community, the others intervene to impose their values? Does playing a role within an international community of nations mean intervening militarily in other countries, with or without the consent of the rest of that community, to uphold that international system when it is threatened? Is it right that one state does not have the right to unilaterally decide to interfere with another state, even with the best of intentions; yet that standard can be removed under particular conditions? Can the whole community enforce human rights on an international scale through agreement to intervene, together?

Until we ask these kinds of questions, and until we can find convincing answers to them, we should not be eager to even begin the debate about when we will or won't intervene. The fact is that responding to the kinds of crimes that Bashar al-Assad's Syrian regime is accused is too important - these questions of law, legitimacy and just action are too important - to respond with anything less than the most carefully considered, planned and scrutineered actions.

==========
References:
==========
+ Roy Greenslade's 'David Cameron humiliated - the newspaper reaction to his defeat'; in The Guardian; 30 August 2013.

+ David Cowling in the BBC's 'Syria crisis: MPs "right to reject military action" - BBC poll'; 2 September 2013.

+ Paddy Ashdown on The Guardian's 'Paddy Ashdown: Syria intervention vote 'a bad night for Britain' - video'; 30 August 2013.

+ Nick Clegg's 'Letter from the Leader: Our Priority is Syria'; on Lib Dem Voice; 1 September 2013.

+ The Guardian's 'Labour frontbencher opposed to Syria military action 'full stop' resigns'; 29 August 2013.

+ Rowena Mason's 'George Osborne: UK should not turn its back on world after Syria vote'; in The Guardian; 30 August 2013.

+ BBC's 'Government loses Commons vote on Syria action'; 29 August 2009.

+ Robert Cooper's 'The new liberal imperialism'; in The Observer; 7 April 2002; Originally published as 'The post-modern state'; in Reordering the World: the long term implications of September 11; The Foreign Policy Centre; 2002.

- More on the UK Parliamentary debate
Cameron's language in the debate, BBC, 2013; Cameron's case for intervention, BBC, 2013; Issues to consider for a rerun of the vote, BBC, 2013; Cameron loses the vote, The Guardian, 2013.

Truth in Art: Facts are not the responsibility of the artist. That responsibility is ours...

Through its various forms, the role of art is expression. It seeks to find clear ways to express all parts of human existence: emotions, feelings, jealousies, passions, ideas and experiences. This search for clarity of expression takes place within a distorted reality, where twisting facts is an acceptable means of expressing with clarity what the events of the real world could not. Yet, this twisting of the truth for clear expression can have unfortunate side effects.

One famous subject of this distortion is Mozart's rival Salieri. The two composers were contemporaries in late 18th century Vienna, composing music for the imperial court of the Hapsburg Emperor Joseph II. By inhabiting this same sphere, they obviously came to contest similar posts and opportunities.

The play, and later film, Amadeus is based on stories of such rivalries, given new heights largely based on Mozart's letters that suggested Salieri and a group of Italian composer was blocking his works. The play and film turn Salieri into a jealous, and vicious, rival to Mozart, a distortion that could have destroyed his reputation.

If consumed uncritically, such distortion of fact might be seen as threatening to corrupt or pervert perceptions. But underneath the surface of famous names, places and times, lies another layer of text. On that layer the players on the surface do not matter. They merely act out and give shape to simple stories about the nature of being - of love and admiration, of jealousy, of talent and hard work, effort and reward, faith and hubris.

In seeking out better ways to convey these underlying truths, art plays with truth and perception. Art searches for clarity of expression without allowing for restrictions. Nor should it. Art should not bow to the limitations created by an irrational world, any more that science should.

An irrational world builds up walls around what it finds inconvenient, asks too few questions, and accepts all too readily the facts it is offered without proper scrutiny. In a rational world such things would not be a cause for concern. The problematic nature of art's distortion of truth comes not from a deficiency within art but a lack of critical reasoning on the part of the viewer.

Art does nothing to conceal the actual facts. Quite the opposite: it finds them, discusses them, uses them. They remain in their original sources to be found and assessed. It is not the purpose of art to be our go between to reach them. Instead it is up to us to source our facts sensibly, and to have care and vigilance in our consumption of art., in what sources we trust, and why.