h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Congratulations on today's column, I really enjoyed reading it. It's very reassuring to know that blair's policy of blindly following America's lead isn't generally accepted in the UK, which is something a lot of people I know are worried about. I'm afraid the news don't always show this aspect of british political life here.

oh... "here" is Germany, btw. So if you don't mind, i'll comment something you said. I've lived here for almost 11 years, so I know what I'm talking about.

"Whilst reading and hearing about Schroeder's remarkable victory in the German election, I found myself envying German voters. I wish I lived in a country with an electoral system that made it possible for people with genuinely radical and progressive ideas to become partners in government, as the Greens are in Germany."

(just a side note, "remarkable victory" is putting it rather strongly. Schroeder's party got only 8800 votes more than Stoiber's, both percentages were 38.5%. Schroeder's party lost almost 3%, whilst stoiber's gained 3... It was more of a strong defeat that the greens managed to make up for by their gains. )

I fully agree with you on the electoral system of germany. As far as I'm aware, it's one of the most "democratic" systems in the world - "democratic" meaning that as much of the votes are taken into account as possible. The problem with Britain's electoral system (or that of the US or many other countries) is that all votes in a constituency that aren't for the winning party in that constituency are basically without effect. As you rightly observed, this prevents minority progressive parties from having any real say in current politics.


"I wish, also, that I lived in a country with a leader who, like Schroeder, is willing to be a candid friend to the United States and not a blindly loyal follower."

Hmm... yes. that's what Schroeder says, and what I definitely believe is right. He's got about 2/3rds of the people behind him in that matter though, which leads may to the fear that he only said it to grab more votes in the election. Personally I hope that this is not the case, he certainly seems honest. But he has said that there will not be any German support for any military US action against Iraq, with or without a UN decision. That's a point that a lot of people fear will be quite hard to stand to - if the Security Council *does* decree military action, many doubt Schroeder will stand up to his word.

It was remarkable to see the US attitude towards the matter. As you may or may not know, there were 2 television discussions between Schroeder and Stoiber, 4 and 2 weeks before the election respectively. (the first such events in German history, btw. ) Schroeder had clearly voiced his opinion on Iraq for months before the first discussion, and there had been *no* reaction whatsoever from the side of the US. This matter was a major topic in both TV discussions, and after the first one, the election predictions shifted in favour of Schroeder's party, probably mainly due to his firm position about the Iraq question.

Only a week after that... when it was clear that Schroeder was gaining sympathy and would have a more than good chance to be re-elected (every opinion poll before the first TV discussion showed Stoiber's party 3-6% before Schroeder's...), there was the statement from the White House and Mr Fleischer saying that the german-american relationship was poisoned. In the two weeks between the second TV discussion and the actual election, there were several attemts on the side of the German government to improve the dimplomatic situation, which were without fail ignored by the US. The culmination was Donald Rumsfeld simply refusing to meet Peter Struck, Germany's minister of defence, at the Nato meeting in Warsaw. Most statistical institutes agree that it was mainly for this reason - the fear about germany's relationship with the US - that a lot of people who would have voted for Schroeder actually changed their minds in the last week, thus making the election result a lot closer than it could have been.

Well, can you blame the US for trying to influence a partner country's election in favour of the candidate who was likely to adopt a "tony blair attitude" to everything they say?

I guess you can...

(sorry for the length of this post... Didn't really realise it was quite so much... almost enough for a separate article.. )

Thanks very much, Paul. Glad you enjoyed the column, and congratulations on your engagement!

Perhaps I should have said 'Schroeder's remarkable comeback', because that was what I meant. As you say, he seemed to come from behind with a tremendous late surge, seemingly boosted by his anti-war stance.

I normally find the BBC's political coverage eminently impartial, but I was irritated by the 'Newsnight' report on the result of the German election. They *could* have said 'Schroeder wins on an anti-war platform. What does this tell us about the mood in Europe on the Iraq issue, and how much of a problem is it for Bush?' Instead it was all 'Schroeder wins, but at the terrible cost of upsetting the American government. How can Germany recover from its catastrophic rift with Washington?' (OK, I'm exaggerating, but that was the general tone of the report).

Everything you say about the British electoral system is absolutely true, and the Liberal Democrats haven't got a prayer of winning in the Parliamentary constituency where I live. But I think I'm going to join them anyway. There's always the local and European elections - and in any case, the more I hear from Blair about Iraq, the more I feel the need to do every little thing I can to vent my anger.

Thanks for replying and for the ..

Yes, you're right. The comback of Schroeder was indeed remarkable and completely unexpected up to a month before the election.. Still, it certainly makes you wonder what's going on in the world if 60-odd percent of voters say they want Schroeder as chancellor and quite a bit less than 30 percent are in favour of Stoiber... and in the end their parties basically tie in the election. People don't seem to realise that the party they vote for directly determines the chancellor - which, I always think, is a bit silly. Makes you wonder if the electoral system wouldn't be even better if the chancellor was elected directly.

Then again... of course I know the usual reply to that, the election would be too based on superficial personal impressions rather than on suitability for the post. I don't know... The point is, people are miserable everywhere. Even here, they're complaining about how undemocratic the electoral system is... And it is, as I said in my first post, one of the most democratic systems I know.

The problem ends up being that once you give a party your vote, you basically have no more say in politics whatsoever for the next 4 years. People speak of a "Partycracy", i.e. if you really want to change something, you have to be a member of one of the parties (at the moment 1.5% of the population are members) and be able to make yourself heard. I don't know... seems to be a fundamental problem of democracy, or indeed any problem of government. There is no ideal state as described in Cicero's "De Re Publica".. (even though his idea was never tried... except partly in ancient rome... hmm.. )

And.. what you said about the Beeb's political coverage of the election... it may sound strange, but that was the general tone of reports here as well. Well, as long as they came from sources that weren't too left-wing... Especially Stoiber and his people seem to have made "German-American relations" their new tantra.. In so far, the united states' attempt to influence the political climate in germany has been successful. It's strange - watching the news, you'd think Schroeder was completely alone with his attitude, and yet he has the majority of the population behind him.

Another thing I find confusing is the strange silence from other european countries. They seem to avoid taking a firm stance until it's clear what happens to germany - and that's not very nice, considering that schroeder needs all possible support to hold out.


You're perfectly right, if you agree with the lib dems more you should join them no matter if they have a chance of winning. It's the attitude that's important - there's no use in saying "What the hell, it won't make any difference anyway". If everybody did what they thought right, it *would* make a difference.

...it reminds me of something I heard said here. A lot of people didn't go to cast their votes because they apparently felt that it wouldn't make any difference anyway whatever they did... well... in that case, they should have gone and cast what is called a "protest vote" - an invalid vote... Parties still get financial support from the state for every vote they get as well as for every vote that's not cast... they get nothing for protest votes though..

A few weeks ago, the Electoral Commission in Britain proposed making 'None of the above' an option on ballot papers, so that voters could reject all the candidates while still exercising their right to vote, and possibly force a fresh election with new candidates. Not a bad idea! The full story's here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2190112.stm

I see from today's papers that France and Russia seem to be standing firm against the rush to war, so perhaps Schroeder won't be standing alone after all. I certainly hope so!

A situation in which a 'partycracy' of 1.5% of the population has political power sounds to me like an improvement on Britain, where all the real power seems to lie in Downing Street. It's already been made clear that whatever the forthcoming Labour Party conference says about Iraq, privatisation and various other issues, it won't change government policy.

The Liberal Democrats, however, do base their party policy on conference resolutions. That's one of the reasons why I posted my application to join them yesterday.