Friday, 9 October 2009
Germany’s new elections were on September 27, with the victory going to Chancellor Merkel’s conservative Christian Democrats. Getting the majority of votes (33.8%) in the Bundestag elections and increasing their seats to 239, the Christian Democrats are now on their way to forming a new center-right government. As she explicitly signaled before the elections, Merkel keeps meeting with the Free Democrats to lead a government in which she will find a chance to carry out liberal economic plans. The highly possible coalition holds enough seats in the Bundestag, so there is no need for the Social Democrats.
The Social Democrats got just 23% of votes, down about 11% compared with the previous elections. In fact, it seems odd that in an environment of economic turbulence, Germans were expected to vote in favor of Social Democrats because they make use of the social aids and expenditures. However, the Social Democrats could not benefit from the economic crisis; they plunged 76 seats instead. Germans probably refrained from an inflationary pressure on the German economy due to state over-spending during the world economic crisis – a lesson from the Second World War. Whatever the reasons of ‘the bitter defeat’ [Steinmeier’s own expression about backtracking] for Social Democrats and whoever the owners of the coalition in the German government, wide-ranging changes for German politics do not seem feasible in the short-run. Most likely things will remain the same in the short-run with regard to Germany’s approach towards Turkey-EU relations.
Nonetheless, what I want to highlight is the election process itself rather than the election results. This is mostly because in many elections since the beginning of the year –whether local, national or European –engaging a European agenda has been discussed through similar rhetoric. Even the European Parliament elections turned into a platform through which national opposition parties criticized current governments in Europe. In the same way, a supra-national agenda, such as stressing the ‘privileged partnership’ in terms of Turkey-EU relations, occurred throughout the German provincial elections. Accordingly, an atmosphere in which both national and supra-national election agendas are in parallel with each other has been more or less the characteristic of the elections hold in Europe. In fact, in my previous comment in JTW I have already discussed that election process, in which many European leaders apply populist approaches and back out of their own internal agenda, damage European integration. I claimed:
“Why could conducting national and European election agenda in a parallel platform be detrimental for European integration? (…) Participation of the election-fatigued European public is affected by such discussions turning around similar expressions that of national ones. One of the major legitimacy problems of European integration is lack of interest and low level of participation in the European elections. (…)[Also] awareness of the event, i.e. election date, is very low. Eurobarometer survey on 2009 elections indicates that (…) national issues and European issues will have more or less the same importance in their [respondents]voting choices for the European elections. If we consider that the European Parliament is the only institution among other EU institutions whose members are directly elected by the public, lack of awareness and participation in the European elections means a serious problem for legitimacy mainly because the election is the symbol of and requirement for participant democracy. Both the failed European Constitution and Lisbon Treaty at stake are all one part of looking for a more efficient participation by the public and thereby a solid integration process.”
I overrate the German election process in this point. This is because it seems that Germany went back to its internal agenda during the Bundestag elections. Anyway, the ‘economy’ was the determining issue extensively discussed before the elections. If the party programs are examined, issues such as the tax system, employment programs, regulation for the education system and energy policies are the primary ones putting their weights on the agenda. Although they differ in their stages and methods, parties in Germany influenced by the financial crisis have been planning to put forth a new economic program, in view of the fact that issues like unemployment head the list of problems of particular urgency. In a sense, the thing having a relatively calming effect on the election process is the economy in crisis; it is in need of recovery and makes all parties be like-minded about this reality. It should be remembered that the2004 general elections in Germany witnessed intense discussions between Schröder and Merkel over Turkey’s EU membership.
It is encouraging that German Chancellor Merkel did not make use of politics just over Turkey in the last stage, even though she resorted to populist speeches about Turkey almost until the end of July. This is simply because it is like a tradition that politicians mostly resort to opposition to a possible enlargement and draw upon people’s anxiety and prejudices particularly in times of economic crisis. At least, Turkey, in this context, seems to not have the makings of an economic crisis as its ‘scapegoat’. Thus, Turkey’s EU membership has not been an instrument to legitimize opposition to enlargement and to exploit people’s stereotypes against enlargement. In this sense Turkey’s EU bid has not been a target for the negativities of European integration – at least for now. However, in an environment of economic crisis that makes Europeans more protective of sharing their welfare, Turkey’s EU membership prospect could easily pave the way for hot debates that could lead to an increase in prejudices – especially for the German case, considering the large Turkish population living in Germany. It would then be enough to make Turkey a concrete example for the debates linking migration and unemployment. From this perspective, it is possible to say that the German election process has gone by in a mature atmosphere in which politicians focused more on the internal problems.
However, the election process and politics conducted through debates without Turkey can be handled in a different perspective. It seems that as it is the case for all of Europe, the meaning of this situation for Turkey is that Turkey’s EU membership has been eclipsed by the events in Europe. In other words, it means that Europe has engaged with other priorities and put issues such as enlargement away for a while. Just like the rest of Europe, Germany, as the engine of European integration, must first overcome its internal problems. So suffice it to say that problems in Europe due to the Constitutional crisis, failure of the Lisbon Treaty and the negative effects of the financial crisis can indirectly be linked to the course of the German election process. Both the EU and Germany are busy with debates on issues concerning the future and have their own priorities. Therefore the issue in question is whether Turkey’s EU membership falls into second place or not.
Consequently, considering that Turkey was a subject of crucial debates throughout previous elections in Germany, the issue can be assessed as two-sided. First, the positive sign: no ground for Germany to exploit Turkey’s EU bid during the elections because of opposition to enlargement, unemployment or migration problems, etc. Second, the negative sign: there is a Europe retiring into itself. In fact, both signs amount to the same thing–Turkey’s EU membership remains out of discussion!
FatmaYilmaz-Elmas
USAK Center for EU Studies
‘Duel on Guarantorship’ in Cyprus
