This goes more generally for all Presidential-Parliamentary democracies really:
QuoteUnfiltered Democracy
Why Germany Should Get Rid of the Presidency
A Commentary by René Pfister
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn3.spiegel.de%2Fimages%2Fimage-305036-panoV9free-tfwf.jpg&hash=49ff0c54ae238e1ff50fe77c516e8e9a27558b3f)
The presidential standard flies above Wulff's official residence in Berlin, Bellevue Palace.
Germany's President Christian Wulff is embroiled in a tiresome scandal over his personal finances, even as many continue to insist on maintaining a special respect for his office. But it's a meaningless and even humiliating job, and one the country should consider finally abolishing in favor of more honest governance.
Is the republic at the edge of the abyss? Are the pillars of democracy swaying? For the last four weeks, Germany has debated the loan scandal surrounding its president, and for just as long, we have heard warnings that the discussion of the tiresome loan could "damage" his office. Sigmar Gabriel, chairman of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), even went as far as saying that German President Christian Wulff could not resign because it might trigger a "national crisis."
In fact, the issue merely revolves around the misconduct of a man who wanted to buy a house he couldn't afford. Why such hysteria over criticism of the president? It's time to take a sober look at the most superfluous office in the republic.
Since its creation, the presidency has been based on a misunderstanding. The fathers of the German constitution believed that pure democracy was too much for the Germans to handle. They were afraid of the anti-parliamentary reflex from the Weimar Republic, which vilified political debates as perpetual quarrels and party discord. The office of the president found its way into the constitution because there were those who wanted to create a neutral force that reconciled citizens with representative party democracy. The tamed ersatz monarch was supposed to satisfy the German yearning for non-partisan reason.
But soon it became clear that this wasn't necessary at all. After the horrors of the Nazi regime, most Germans no longer needed to be convinced of democracy's advantages. And the state of emergency, in which the president was to guide the nation, never occurred. Soon the question arose as to what exactly a president should do with his time. Though formally the highest-ranking official in the country, he actually has no power at all. He cannot even claim direct election by the people.
Boring Routine
There is always something humiliating about the office of the president. The head of state has all the trappings of power at his disposal, including an attractive official residence in the posh Berlin suburb of Dahlem, an armored official car that flies the presidential standard and bears special license-plate number 0-1, along with access to the German air force's VIP squadron, even ahead of the chancellor, if necessary. But his position is all grand form with no substance. The president appoints the cabinet ministers the chancellor wants, and he signs bills into law that the coalition government has drafted. The office is an imposition for any politician with even the smallest shred of ambition.
Anyone who travels with the president can witness the full drama of the office. The head of state is surrounded by the aura of importance. He walks down red carpets to the sound of military bands, and he comes face-to-face with the world's most important and powerful people. But in the end it is nothing but a semblance of power. The talks remain superficial, extending to little more than assurances of mutual friendship and the desire for greater cooperation. Form without substance creates a sense of the ridiculous to which every president is exposed.
It comes as no surprise that the politicians who were candidates for the presidency in the past were usually those who had lost their thirst for power after a long career. There were also cases in which appointing a politician to the office solved an embarrassing problem, such as that of Heinrich Lübke. The conservative Christian Democratic agriculture minister was able to take up residence in the Villa Hammerschmidt (the president's former official residence in Bonn) because then Chancellor Konrad Adenauer realized at the last minute how little influence the president actually had.
Naturally the more ambitious presidents have tried to push the boundaries of their power. Theodor Heuss, for example, managed to prevent fellow party member Thomas Dehler from being reappointed as justice minister, and Horst Köhler refused to sign two laws that he thought were unconstitutional. But in the end, these were just attempts to escape the representative boredom of the presidential routine. The text of the German constitution is clear. The chancellor, it reads, "shall determine and be responsible for the general guidelines of policy" -- not the president.
A Special 'Respect'
The discrepancy between the importance of protocol and actual lack of influence is the reason for the oddly inhibited handling of the highest-ranking public office. No one would consider sparing a chancellor or a minister from investigation for involvement in a scandal by arguing that this would harm the office. On the contrary, it is precisely because personal misconduct is punished that these offices can remain intact. In the case of the president, however, just the opposite applies. Every debate about the head of state reliably includes the suggestion that he be treated with special "respect." One could see this as evidence of a unique political responsibility, but the truth lies elsewhere: The office of the president is a façade, which is why people are so afraid that a firm kick would be enough to send it all tumbling down.
The presidential selection process itself reveals the faulty design of the office. To ensure that the president is not provided with greater authority than the chancellor, he is not elected directly by the people, but by the Federal Convention. But because the parties set the tone within this body, every president comes into office with the inherent flaw of being the result of precisely the political wheeling and dealing from which he is supposed to be set apart.
Oh, but the speeches! Some say that the power of the president stems from the word; that he is the country's supreme editorial writer or a secular preacher of sorts, as political scientist Dolf Sternberger has put it. No self-respecting president forgets that he should encourage debate and even be difficult, if necessary. But is this really true? There have certainly been memorable speeches by German presidents. They include the address by Richard von Weizsäcker on May 9, 1985 to mark the 40th anniversary of the German surrender, Roman Herzog's "jolt" speech and, most recently, Christian Wulff's remark that Islam is part of Germany.
But it is a popular myth in the republic that the president initiates debate. The trick to a successful presidential speech lies precisely in capturing the social mainstream and giving it a quasi-governmental blessing. Weizsäcker's speech on the anniversary of Germany's surrender was brilliant, but in the end it only summarized the consensus that had emerged from a decades-long debate over how Germany should address its Nazi past. It wasn't Weizsäcker who had forced the painful debate over the crimes of the Nazis on the German people -- the '68 generation deserved most of the credit for this. Was it truly shocking in 1997 -- that is, in the final phase of the Kohl era -- to lament politicians' lapsed courage to bring about reforms, as Roman Herzog did in his jolt speech? And besides the Bavarian conservative party, the Christian Social Democrats (CSU), who seriously disputes that Islam is a part of Germany?
Official Soapbox Orator
There is always something amusing about the president being said to have given a "courageous" speech. Courage implies having something to lose, and aside from a little criticism in the press, a president has nothing to fear, as Roman Herzog once admitted with refreshing candidness: "Because I, as president, have almost no decision-making power, it isn't even possible to hold me accountable if someone translates proposals I make into law. On the other hand, when something I propose is not done, I can always point out that it would have been better if they had listened to me."
Of course, the republic can afford an official soapbox orator. The office of the president costs taxpayers €30 million ($38 million) a year, which an industrialized nation like Germany can certainly afford. But it's annoying when presidents abuse the office to make a name for themselves at the expense of those politicians who actually have to follow up their words with actions. One of the reasons Wulff's predecessor, Horst Köhler, was so popular is that he gave a voice to anger against politicians. He managed to castigate politicians for being enslaved to the pollsters, while at the same time delighting in his own popularity.
Köhler had a great role model. No former president is as admired as Richard von Weizsäcker, and yet he was the one who introduced the unpleasant habit of criticizing politics and parties from the vantage point of the president. Weizsäcker had been a member of the CDU federal executive board for years, and he was a member of the Bundestag and mayor of Berlin, but as president he said: "I do not come from the world of political parties." Like Köhler later on, he did not try to encourage understanding for the complex business of political life. Instead, he separated himself from it to enhance his popularity.
Colder, But More Honest
It is about time to think about the unthinkable -- a republic without a president. Is this even possible? With some goodwill, the meager competencies of the head of state could certainly be quickly reassigned. Laws can also come into effect without the president's signature. That would leave the examination of whether new legislation is in conformity with the constitution, a task that the Federal Constitutional Court is better equipped to perform than the lawyers at the office of the president.
And why shouldn't the Bundestag be given the right to dissolve itself? It's already a glaring deficiency in the constitution that a chancellor who is tired of governing can only pave the way to new elections by proposing a vote of confidence, and the construct is made doubly absurd by the fact that the president is ultimately included in the decision-making process.
What would a republic without a president look like? It would be colder, but more honest -- colder because citizens could no longer cling to the comforting idea that there is something akin to non-partisan wisdom. Germany would have to bid farewell to the idea of a republican king, one who puts a friendly face on the daily battle for power. It would also lose the president's annual Christmas address.
It would also be more honest because the elimination of the presidential office would obliterate the last trace of fear of an authoritarian state from the constitution. It would reduce the German democracy to its rational core, and to the insight that politics cannot exist without debate and strife -- and that that is a good thing. It would be an unfiltered democracy, and thus an unprecedented experiment in German history. But it wouldn't be the worst.
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan
I'm not keen on cold, honest politics. I like the white lies and personality of an individual representing 'the nation'. But he has a point. What's the point of Presidents in Republics like Germany or Ireland or, from what I understand, Poland?
I regard it as a form of insurance against extremism. In that sense it is unfortunate that the German presidency is of such little account.
The simple answer to that question is No.
The President in Germany serves exactly the same function as the Queen in the UK. So that's your answer really.
They don't need a president. As long as they have a head of state.
Quote from: Martinus on January 24, 2012, 07:50:40 AM
The President in Germany serves exactly the same function as the Queen in the UK. So that's your answer really.
At least the Euro monarchies do seem to be actually apolitical to a suprising extent. The German President is an extremely political office that attempts to appear not to be. So do they really represent a symbolic mascot for the nation to the extent the British Monarchy does? I mean the monarchy might be the insistution that ends up keeping the UK together in the end (presuming it stays together).
Whatfor do we need a head of state?
Quote from: Zanza on January 24, 2012, 08:38:01 AM
Whatfor do we need a head of state?
To handle ceremonial nonsense so the real authorities can do the real work.
Quote from: Valmy on January 24, 2012, 08:40:31 AM
Quote from: Zanza on January 24, 2012, 08:38:01 AM
Whatfor do we need a head of state?
To handle ceremonial nonsense so the real authorities can do the real work.
Yeah. The sort of stuff you want to drain the politics out of, so I suppose remembrance, some military relations, the ceremonial aspects of foreign policy. The sorts of things when there's sense of the nation and the state doing something rather than just the government.
An example would be the Queen's visit to Ireland which is loaded with significance of a sort no PM could try and pull off.
My father placed great importance on his oath of allegiance to the Queen, similarly he received his warrant and commission from her. So, when he was out and about doing his duty as a soldier, that was for Queen and country, not for the despicable rabble in the House of Commons :lol:
The last time Germany unified the roles of president, chief executive and military commander it did not work out so well for them. It is better for those powers to be spread out.
I remember having liked the president back in the days when charismatic men of dignity (von Weizsäcker) held the office to counterweigh the bad impression certain obese toads in chancellorhood (Jabba the Kohl) left in the world. With people like Christian W., being party buttons coming directly from daily political business, who even make it a deal to leave their party membership behind, you really have to ask yourself if Germany needs a president.
I'd generally still say yes we should have one. Above the parties, unpolitical, citizen royalty.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 24, 2012, 04:28:51 AM
I regard it as a form of insurance against extremism.
Didn't work for Weimar, and not for lack of someone with clout in the job.
Quote from: Valmy on January 24, 2012, 08:40:31 AM
Quote from: Zanza on January 24, 2012, 08:38:01 AM
Whatfor do we need a head of state?
To handle ceremonial nonsense so the real authorities can do the real work.
Combining both roles in one person works fine in the USA.
Quote from: Zanza on January 24, 2012, 10:57:16 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 24, 2012, 08:40:31 AM
Quote from: Zanza on January 24, 2012, 08:38:01 AM
Whatfor do we need a head of state?
To handle ceremonial nonsense so the real authorities can do the real work.
Combining both roles in one person works fine in the USA.
The US has a head of state.
Yes, but that head of state is also the real authority who does the real work...
Quote from: Zanza on January 24, 2012, 10:57:16 AM
Combining both roles in one person works fine in the USA.
Does it? I find it slightly dangerous and, indeed, when other country's try our system it has the unfortunate tendency to move towards Presidential dictatorships. Our strong traditions and respect for the Constitution keep the executive under control for the most part but I am not sure our system is one everybody should emulate...with respect to the Executive Branch anyway.
Quote from: Zanza on January 24, 2012, 11:01:29 AM
Yes, but that head of state is also the real authority who does the real work...
But imagine if their President had the level of power of a British PM, or a German Chancellor. The power to, you know, pass laws or budgets.
You need a head of state for diplomatic ceremonial reasons. Who is the head of state matters little.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2012, 11:03:42 AM
Quote from: Zanza on January 24, 2012, 11:01:29 AM
Yes, but that head of state is also the real authority who does the real work...
But imagine if their President had the level of power of a British PM, or a German Chancellor. The power to, you know, pass laws or budgets.
Yes, but our heads of government already have that power. I am not sure about the checks and balances the queen exercises in the British system, but our federal president is so powerless that he is no major obstacle to a chancellor who wants implement his policies anyway. And foreign dignitaries will first contact the chancellor too. The real check in the German system is the Constitutional Court and the real balance is between the federal and the state level, with the latter having considerable power through the upper chamber of parliament.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2012, 11:03:42 AM
Quote from: Zanza on January 24, 2012, 11:01:29 AM
Yes, but that head of state is also the real authority who does the real work...
But imagine if their President had the level of power of a British PM, or a German Chancellor. The power to, you know, pass laws or budgets.
The danger is having the Head of Government also having all the informal power of being the symbol of the country and all the gravitas and so forth that our President has which has the capability of him vastly overstepping his Constitutional bounds. But I am pretty sure the German Chancellor is in this exact same position as I do not think Germans rally around their President from what I see in this article.
You have to remember that the US President has a direct demographic mandate and is not just a leader of the parliamentary majority - so he can be at times at odds with the parliamentary majority which creates necessary checks and balances.
Quote from: Zanza on January 24, 2012, 11:13:31 AM
Yes, but our heads of government already have that power. I am not sure about the checks and balances the queen exercises in the British system, but our federal president is so powerless that he is no major obstacle to a chancellor who wants implement his policies anyway. And foreign dignitaries will first contact the chancellor too. The real check in the German system is the Constitutional Court and the real balance is between the federal and the state level, with the latter having considerable power through the upper chamber of parliament.
It's exactly the same here. Though we don't have a powerful upper chamber, or a Constitutional Court.
But I agree with Valmy. The US President doesn't have the power of a PM in a Parliamentary system because they don't necessarily have a majority, and if they do it may not back them anyway. I think it's potentially dangerous if you had a Chancellor, or PM who had their powers from the parliamentary majority and the informal, symbolic role of representing the nation on Memorial Sunday, leading the armed forces and so on.
This is why, as Valmy points out, Presidential systems are more likely to slide into dictatorship. Having said that there's no example of a country doing without a head of state, or making them the head of the governing party in the legislature. It's a strange idea really. There are loads of examples of PM's promoting themselves to newly empowered Presidential positions (I think Erdogan's reportedly planning to do this in Turkey) but not taking the head of state position from the President to the PM.
Quote from: Valmy on January 24, 2012, 11:17:09 AM
The danger is having the Head of Government also having all the informal power of being the symbol of the country and all the gravitas and so forth that our President has which has the capability of him vastly overstepping his Constitutional bounds. But I am pretty sure the German Chancellor is in this exact same position as I do not think Germans rally around their President from what I see in this article.
Do Americans rally round their Presidents when they're going through personal financial scandals? :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2012, 11:37:54 AM
Do Americans rally round their Presidents when they're going through personal financial scandals? :mellow:
I am talking about how it appears Germans regard the President in general rather than the specific scandal.
But generally when large amounts of people are having personal financial problems they do demand the President do something to save them.
Raz remains unmoved by the plight of a high official in government who doesn't have enough power.
Our president held a speech today at commemoration of Frederick the Great's 300th birthday. That's the kind of stuff he does, which is not much.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 24, 2012, 10:52:27 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 24, 2012, 04:28:51 AM
I regard it as a form of insurance against extremism.
Didn't work for Weimar, and not for lack of someone with clout in the job.
Indeed, but there was no person or combination of persons who could have kept the Weimar Republic afloat.
If someone paid me not to do anything important, I wouldn't complain.
You know what would solve this problem and make everything better? Bring back the kaiser!
This really does make for rather good reading for any would be British republicans.
Quote from: Tyr on January 24, 2012, 09:21:30 PM
You know what would solve this problem and make everything better? Bring back the kaiser!
This really does make for rather good reading for any would be British republicans.
Would also be easier to excuse scandals then.
Republics are inherently foolish.
I would accept the crown of Germany.
I'll be President of Germany. I'll take a quarter of the pay as well.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 24, 2012, 10:36:13 PM
I would accept the crown of Germany.
You'd stoop to take a crown out of the gutter?
Quote from: Zanza on January 24, 2012, 02:15:09 PM
Our president held a speech today at commemoration of Frederick the Great's 300th birthday. That's the kind of stuff he does, which is not much.
It's always better than portraying Frederick as an old, ugly-voiced woman like that Arte movie :hug:
Well he was a deserter.
Wulff resigned his office today after state prosecutors had formally asked parliament to lift his legal immunity.
QuoteBerlin (CNN) -- Germany's President Christian Wulff announced his resignation Friday in a televised statement, following a series of scandals that prompted calls for him to stand down.
Germany "needs a president who can devote himself completely to national and international challenges," Wulff said in a statement.
"(Germany) needs a president who is supported by the trust of not just a majority, but a wide majority of citizens.
"The developments of the past days and weeks have shown that this trust and therefore confidence in my ability to serve have been adversely affected. For this reason, it is no longer possible for me to continue in my role as president."
The German presidency is a largely ceremonial office but Wulff's resignation will be seen as a blow to Chancellor Angela Merkel, who supported his candidacy as president.
In a separate televised statement, Merkel said Wulff had put the interests of the general public to the fore in deciding to resign.
The members of her governing coalition would now discuss who should stand for election in his place, she said, in consultation with other political parties.
Merkel had been due to meet Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti in Rome to discuss the eurozone crisis but canceled the trip amid the political storm over Wulff, who belongs to her party.
Wulff, who was the state premiere of Lower Saxony for seven years, was one of Merkel's biggest rivals within the Christian Democrats before being elected to the presidency in 2010.
It took three rounds of voting in the Reichstag, or German parliament, before he won enough backing from lawmakers to assume the role.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2012, 03:48:35 AM
This goes more generally for all Presidential-Parliamentary democracies really:
I'm not keen on cold, honest politics. I like the white lies and personality of an individual representing 'the nation'. But he has a point. What's the point of Presidents in Republics like Germany or Ireland or, from what I understand, Poland?
If someone else had asked I would have said no, but it has become manifestly clear to me, and I think others on Languish that if Sheilbh is for something politically then it can't help but be wrong. :sleep:
Thus I am forced to say yes.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2012, 12:15:44 PM
Raz remains unmoved by the plight of a high official in government who doesn't have enough power.
You uncaring monster. :mad:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 17, 2012, 07:08:44 AMIf someone else had asked I would have said no, but it has become manifestly clear to me, and I think others on Languish that if Sheilbh is for something politically then it can't help but be wrong. :sleep:
Thus I am forced to say yes.
:lol: Most of the time I'm just commenting and arguing not being for or against anything. But there's a few exceptions like this.
Also you need to read what I said again because my answer was 'yes' :P
Why did he become President in the first place Zanza?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 24, 2012, 09:19:52 AM
the last time Germany unified the roles of president, chief executive and military commander it did not work out so well for them. It is better for those powers to be spread out.
Probably because an Austrian did it. They're not that good at keeping things together. Next time they should let german engineers design the thing :p
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 17, 2012, 07:34:06 AMWhy did he become President in the first place Zanza?
Because Merkel needed to get rid of a potential party rival. Generally, after being president your political carer is over.
Quote from: Syt on February 17, 2012, 09:59:33 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 17, 2012, 07:34:06 AMWhy did he become President in the first place Zanza?
Because Merkel needed to get rid of a potential party rival. Generally, after being president your political carer is over.
I get that. But why did he do it? Tired? Wanted an easier life? Enjoyed the ceremonial stuff?
Maybe they should combine the office of president and the office of chancellor.
Quote from: Syt on February 17, 2012, 09:59:33 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 17, 2012, 07:34:06 AMWhy did he become President in the first place Zanza?
Because Merkel needed to get rid of a potential party rival. Generally, after being president your political carer is over.
Silly Germans, that's what Brussels is for.
He should have just had a big orgy. Go out in a blaze of Khan-like glory.
I don't care if Germany has a President, a Premier, a PM, a Pope, or the Lord Protector Easter Bunny of Death.
Whatever it takes to keep them from their nasty habit of getting together for torch-lit rallies and lock-step marches over other countries' borders.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 21, 2012, 01:45:32 PM
I don't care if Germany has a President, a Premier, a PM, a Pope, or the Lord Protector Easter Bunny of Death.
Whatever it takes to keep them from their nasty habit of getting together for torch-lit rallies and lock-step marches over other countries' borders.
This is what our army does to bid farewell to a former president ... a torch-lit rally and lock-step marches. But at home. ;)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bundestag.de%2Fblickpunkt%2FbilderInhalte%2F0507%2F500px%2F0507055a.jpg&hash=449799ec5082fe45f2e51c38d8b6654dbe71854d)
I agree, the German president is nothing more than somebody to greet the politicans while Merkel is busy on the phone telling the greeks to shape up.
This is not, however, an inditement of Presidential Parliamentary systems. The President is irrellevant because he has no legitimacy. He is elected by the Bundestag and therefore has no legitimate reason to say anything. Germany needs a President to curb an overmighty chancellor. You should possibly look to Finland or Iceland for a model. There the President is elected independently and has the veto but no Bully Pulpit. It's a cultural thing, I think germany could do as well. Typically the President in Iceland is either a retired and respected politician or a cultural figure (Imagine President Günther Grass or Wim Wenders).
Don't give up on it yet...
Quote from: Viking on February 21, 2012, 02:25:51 PM
I agree, the German president is nothing more than somebody to greet the politicans while Merkel is busy on the phone telling the greeks to shape up.
This is not, however, an inditement of Presidential Parliamentary systems. The President is irrellevant because he has no legitimacy. He is elected by the Bundestag and therefore has no legitimate reason to say anything. Germany needs a President to curb an overmighty chancellor. You should possibly look to Finland or Iceland for a model. There the President is elected independently and has the veto but no Bully Pulpit. It's a cultural thing, I think germany could do as well. Typically the President in Iceland is either a retired and respected politician or a cultural figure (Imagine President Günther Grass or Wim Wenders).
Don't give up on it yet...
The next president looks quite promising actually. :)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2012/02/germanys-next-president
QuoteGermany's next president
A good choice
Feb 20th 2012, 16:39 by B.U.
ALMOST everyone looks like a winner after the hurried decision to name Joachim Gauck, a former East German dissident, as Germany's next president. Mr Gauck, an unsuccessful candidate in 2010, was chosen in a flurry of weekend meetings by five of the six parties in the Bundestag. Christian Wulff, the man who defeated him, had quit last week after a string of scandals relating to his previous job, premier of the state of Lower Saxony, came to light.
Now Chancellor Angela Merkel, the daughter of a protestant pastor who was raised in communist East Germany, will be joined at the summit of the German state by a man who is himself an East German protestant cleric. Her job is to govern, his will be to exhort and inspire. Approval by the Bundesversammlung, a body called to elect the president, is a formality.
The opposition Social Democratic and Green parties, who pushed Mr Gauck for the presidency in 2010, backed him again. On the surface, at least, his election at the second attempt is a victory for them. It is a bigger coup for the Free Democratic Party (FDP), the ailing junior partner in Mrs Merkel's coalition government. Its newish chairman, Philipp Rösler, risked a clash with Mrs Merkel—even the breakup of the coalition, according to some reports—by taking a stand in favour of Mr Gauck, the candidate she had opposed less than two years ago.
That is partly because Mr Gauck's unabashed defence of freedom, of the economic as well as the political sort, fits well with the FDP's liberal principles (it is more surprising that the Social Democrats and Greens support him). Other candidates under consideration, like the former environment minister Klaus Töpfer, would have sent a signal that Mrs Merkel is eager to prepare for a coalition with one of the opposition parties after the next federal election in 2013. Dr Rösler has seen off that danger, a rare victory for the relatively callow liberal leader.
Less obviously, Mrs Merkel has also come out ahead. That is not a universal interpretation. "She had to absorb the bitterest defeat of her time in office," opined Spiegel Online on Monday. Everyone thought that her Christian Democratic Union (and its Bavarian wing, the Christian Social Union) would reject Mr Gauck to spare the chancellor the embarrassment of admitting she was mistaken to reject him last time around. On this view, she was too weak to stand up to a menacing throng of liberals and leftists.
Maybe so, but Mrs Merkel is probably not too worried. She has a president (the first who is not a member of a party) that almost all the parties in the Bundestag can live with. If presidential elections are partly about signalling future political alliances, the signal is that Mrs Merkel can govern with almost any other party. Not for the first time, what some see as a setback could end up strengthening her.
Most important, the German people also look like winners. Unlike his predecessor, Mr Gauck is a charismatic and inspiring figure. He had a leading role in the protests that toppled the East German regime in 1989. As head of the Stasi archive after unification he pushed to open the files to victims of the East German secret police as well as researchers. He is a forthright patriot (he wants Germans to realise that they "live in a good country that they can love") but is also willing to say less emollient things when required.
In a new book he calls freedom his highest political value and defends capitalism as a system capable of correcting its mistakes. He has offended anti-capitalists by mocking them as romantics and some civil libertarians by seeming to make light of the danger to privacy from keeping telecoms data available for the police. He criticises Germans for honoring a 'secret constitution', in which the status quo (rather than human dignity) is held to be inviolable. Mr Gauck is the people's choice: in one poll 54% of the electorate backed him for the presidency. President Gauck may prove a more bracing leader than most Germans imagine.
I didn't know they still had Pastors in post-humanist Europe.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304724404577289292871304940.html
QuoteFormer Dissident Is Elected as German President
By WILLIAM BOSTON And DAVID CRAWFORD
BERLIN—Joachim Gauck, a pastor-turned-dissident in the former East Germany, was elected Germany's head of state on Sunday, ending a political drama that nearly split Chancellor Angela Merkel's center-right coalition government.
The 72-year-old Mr. Gauck, an outspoken advocate of civil rights and personal liberty, was elected as Germany's federal president by an overwhelming majority in the Federal Convention, a special assembly of German lawmakers and representatives of the country's 16 states.
His rise to the presidency, a mostly ceremonial role whose influence depends on the moral authority of the incumbent, followed the resignation of predecessor Christian Wulff amid corruption allegations.
Filling the presidency had become a source of embarrassment for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who pushed her party colleague Mr. Wulff into the job only in 2010, even though most Germans thought the charismatic and eloquent Mr. Gauck was the better candidate. Mr. Wulff's rapid downfall gave Mr. Gauck a second run at the job.
Mr. Wulff resigned in March after public prosecutors launched a criminal investigation into allegations that he accepted favors from businessmen in his previous job as governor of the state of Lower Saxony. Mr. Wulff was the second German president to step down in less than two years, following the resignation in 2010 of Horst Köhler, a former head of the International Monetary Fund, who had also been hand-picked for the presidency by Ms. Merkel.
The chancellor initially tried to block Mr. Gauck's bid last month, partly because of opposition from conservatives in her Christian Democratic Union party. But her junior coalition partner, the Free Democrats, sided with Germany's center-left opposition and backed Mr. Gauck, causing a major rift in the coalition. Ms. Merkel could only hold her government together by joining the bandwagon in favor of Mr. Gauck.
In his brief acceptance speech, Mr. Gauck spoke of the great responsibility he would bear as advocate of German democracy, hard-won after two dictatorships, to help Germans exercise their rights as citizens and feel they participate fully in the country. It is a message that will likely form the soundtrack to Mr. Gauck's five-year term.
With Mr. Gauck's election, Germany's two top political posts are now held by former democracy activists from the country's ex-Communist East. Ms. Merkel, the daughter of a Lutheran pastor, wasn't a dissident under Communism, but became involved in the democracy movement in the heady days that followed the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.
Mr. Gauck, whose father was persecuted by the Soviets, rebelled against East Germany's Communist rulers early in life and sought refuge under the wings of the Lutheran Church. He became a pastor and leader in the church's youth wing. His potential influence on East German youth put him in the crosshairs of the Stasi secret police.
Mr. Gauck's Stasi file, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, shows that the Stasi classified him as an enemy of the state in 1983, and began a secret campaign—dubbed Operation Larva—aimed at pushing him to a nervous breakdown, a ploy often used against dissidents. To disrupt Mr. Gauck's private life, the Stasi visited him in 1985 and then leaked details from the meeting to his friends and co-workers. The Stasi also spread rumors that Mr. Gauck, who was married, had an affair with a theology student.
In 1988, the Stasi tried to recruit Mr. Gauck as an informer, by promising to allow his children, who had emigrated to West Germany, to visit him in the East. Mr. Gauck refused to cooperate and said he would inform his friends and colleagues about the Stasi's advances. A few months later, the Stasi closed Operation Larva.
When popular demonstrations for democracy swelled in 1989, Mr. Gauck turned his church in the port city of Rostock into a center of nonviolent resistance to the regime, organizing weekly protest marches and preaching for freedom.
"Sometimes we warned him to be a bit more careful in his choice of words, but he was unimpressed. He had no fear," recalls Arvid Schnauer, a fellow pastor from Rostock.
After Germany unified, Mr. Gauck was appointed to head the agency tasked with organizing, preserving and documenting the millions of files that the Stasi had collected on East Germans through its vast network of spies. As head of the archive, which became known as the Gauck Agency, Mr. Gauck made sure that every East German victim of the Stasi obtained the right to read the contents of his or her own file.
An elected figurehead President seems pretty pointless to me. Figurehead monarchs at least have significant symbolism and provide a form of continuance and stability, as they rule for life and represent a dynasty that has ruled for generations. A figurehead President has none of that, and is not notable in any way. If Germany disbanded the office of the President, no one would notice.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 19, 2012, 12:20:37 AM
An elected figurehead President seems pretty pointless to me. Figurehead monarchs at least have significant symbolism and provide a form of continuance and stability, as they rule for life and represent a dynasty that has ruled for generations. A figurehead President has none of that, and is not notable in any way. If Germany disbanded the office of the President, no one would notice.
They can still go to pointless parties and banquets, thus reducing the workload of the Chancellor, enabling her to concentrate more on the actual work.
But, apart from that, I agree with your point.
We could make the president of our either of our chambers of parliament the head of state.
The upper chamber presidenty is rotating between the state premiers so we would get a new head of state each year. The lower chamber presidency is usually from the party of the chancellor and only changes with each legislative period of the parliament (usually four years), so I would prefer the former.
That person could then meet foreign dignitaries, do the formal appointments of ministers and judges etc., and sign laws. We could probably delegate a lot of the "meet dignitaries" tasks to the foreign minister too as that job has lost a lot of weight with the chancellor doing most foreign policy herself.
You could always bring back the Imperial family, and in such a way become legitimate again.
Quote from: Neil on March 19, 2012, 01:23:58 PM
You could always bring back the Imperial family, and in such a way become legitimate again.
Let's just skip that.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F4%2F4f%2FGeorg_Friedrich_Prinz_von_Preussen.jpg%2F383px-Georg_Friedrich_Prinz_von_Preussen.jpg&hash=cae94baecb335306af534bbc894ef45472425868)
Speaking of Germany, how's that whole thing going with the Ossi assimilation project? Unemployment and incomes still bad in the east?
Quote from: Neil on March 19, 2012, 01:23:58 PM
You could always bring back the Imperial family, and in such a way become legitimate again.
Das Alte und Morsche, die Monarchie ist zusammengebrochen. Es lebe das Neue; es lebe die deutsche Republik!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2012, 04:44:18 PM
Speaking of Germany, how's that whole thing going with the Ossi assimilation project? Unemployment and incomes still bad in the east?
Incomes are still lower, but then so is cost of living (at least slightly). Unemployment in the best regions of Eastern Germany is lower than in the worst regions of Western Germany, but in general it's still higher.
Here is a picture from February. To make it comparable with the figures Eurostat publishes, you have to substract maybe a percent or even one-and-a-half percent of each value.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.faz.net%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.1666492%21%2Fimage%2F4039171434.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2Fdefault%2F4039171434.jpg&hash=a21ceecce039307a8a9fa56d5087a8be825261be)
Dankeschoen, darling dankeschoen.
Quote from: Syt on March 19, 2012, 04:29:14 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F4%2F4f%2FGeorg_Friedrich_Prinz_von_Preussen.jpg%2F383px-Georg_Friedrich_Prinz_von_Preussen.jpg&hash=cae94baecb335306af534bbc894ef45472425868)
Oh wow. The Hohenzollern in that dude is striking.
Quote from: Valmy on March 19, 2012, 10:00:08 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 19, 2012, 04:29:14 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F4%2F4f%2FGeorg_Friedrich_Prinz_von_Preussen.jpg%2F383px-Georg_Friedrich_Prinz_von_Preussen.jpg&hash=cae94baecb335306af534bbc894ef45472425868)
Oh wow. The Hohenzollern in that dude is striking.
No shit. If he grew a mustache, he'd be as Kaiser as he could be.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 19, 2012, 12:20:37 AM
An elected figurehead President seems pretty pointless to me. Figurehead monarchs at least have significant symbolism and provide a form of continuance and stability, as they rule for life and represent a dynasty that has ruled for generations. A figurehead President has none of that, and is not notable in any way. If Germany disbanded the office of the President, no one would notice.
When I saw the headline that Glock (or whatever) is the new President of Germany, my first thought was "What the fuck, I didn't know Merkel was on her way out".
Honestly, what the fuck does the President of Germany do?
Mostly: Hold flowery speeches, welcome heads of states and sign off federal laws. In the past they'd occasionally delay (even refuse? don't recall) signing off if they thought the law was against the constitution.
So.. basically nothing?
Btw, I met a comely fraulein from Southern Tyrol recently. I can't think of anything more exotic than a German Italian.. if only I weren't married. :wub:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 19, 2012, 03:16:50 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 19, 2012, 12:20:37 AM
An elected figurehead President seems pretty pointless to me. Figurehead monarchs at least have significant symbolism and provide a form of continuance and stability, as they rule for life and represent a dynasty that has ruled for generations. A figurehead President has none of that, and is not notable in any way. If Germany disbanded the office of the President, no one would notice.
They can still go to pointless parties and banquets, thus reducing the workload of the Chancellor, enabling her to concentrate more on the actual work.
But, apart from that, I agree with your point.
That's what VPs and deputies are for.
Quote from: Syt on March 19, 2012, 11:41:59 PMIn the past they'd occasionally delay (even refuse? don't recall) signing off if they thought the law was against the constitution.
Not anymore? IMO that's the biggest weapon in a President's arsenal inside parlamentary democracies. Napolitano used it a lot against Berlusconi to fend off his most blatant power grubbing moves, and Vaclav Klaus and the Kaczinski twin used it to delay signing EU treaties they didn't agree with, IIRC.
Quote from: The Larch on March 20, 2012, 04:24:21 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 19, 2012, 11:41:59 PMIn the past they'd occasionally delay (even refuse? don't recall) signing off if they thought the law was against the constitution.
Not anymore? IMO that's the biggest weapon in a President's arsenal inside parlamentary democracies. Napolitano used it a lot against Berlusconi to fend off his most blatant power grubbing moves, and Vaclav Klaus and the Kaczinski twin used it to delay signing EU treaties they didn't agree with, IIRC.
There was a total of eight cases since 1949 with the last one in 2006, so it is very unusual and there has to be a serious formal or material reservation for presidents not to sign legislation. There were another nine cases when they signed but added a comment that they seriously doubt the constitutionality of legislation.
Quote from: Zanza on March 20, 2012, 05:53:15 AM
Quote from: The Larch on March 20, 2012, 04:24:21 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 19, 2012, 11:41:59 PMIn the past they'd occasionally delay (even refuse? don't recall) signing off if they thought the law was against the constitution.
Not anymore? IMO that's the biggest weapon in a President's arsenal inside parlamentary democracies. Napolitano used it a lot against Berlusconi to fend off his most blatant power grubbing moves, and Vaclav Klaus and the Kaczinski twin used it to delay signing EU treaties they didn't agree with, IIRC.
There was a total of eight cases since 1949 with the last one in 2006, so it is very unusual and there has to be a serious formal or material reservation for presidents not to sign legislation. There were another nine cases when they signed but added a comment that they seriously doubt the constitutionality of legislation.
Well, that either means that German presidents are quite docile to the government or that German governments generally do lawmaking well enough that they don't need much correcting.
They need a lot of correcting, but that's the role of the Constitutional Court. That court can rule both on conflicts between other state organs (e.g. between parliament and government or between states and federation) and on constitutional complaints filed by individuals. That means that a lot of laws will be checked by the Constitutional Court and they often declare stuff void and demand that the legislators find a new solution within certain constraints.