European political attitudes

I need all you European tropers' help with politics. The other wiki is full of facts, but I really don't care how many members there are in parliament (this being the future and all); I'm more interested in general principles and attitudes. Basically, what is politics like where you are from? What would or wouldn't politically-minded people tend to do, say, and think?

For instance, in America, the American dream is the overarching focus: self-made prosperity regardless of one's background. We love our small business owners and hardworking, salt-of-the-earth "real Americans" (although actual policy doesn't always reflect this). We love our First Amendment, especially freedom of speech. Judeo-Christian religion is important. "America is the greatest country on Earth" is another important narrative; politicians tend not to do well when they point out areas where other countries surpass us, even if it's provably true. A couple of unique things are our gun lobby (not, as non-Americans often think, a majority, but a strident minority) and our terror of socialism/communism (and frequent inability to distinguish them).

edited 25th May '11 12:27:04 AM by jewelleddragon

Germany: Obviously, The War is still a very big thing, and most of the country is concerned (if not afraid) of the extreme right. Part of it is the believe that for whatever reason, Germans might easily be "seduced" back into supporting a dictatorship. Anything connected to how the country was run is very much suspect, especially the military. Germany is perhaps the only major world power that is borderline pacifist. Another string of that is a great distrust of anything connected with the government. That is not to say that every German is an Anarchist in waiting (though a German anarchy would be very well organized!), but there is a wide spread feeling that the Politicians have no idea what the country needs or wants (the usual reply is that the country itself doesn't know). The result of that is a love/hate relationship with the EU - on the one hand, everybody knows that the German economy has profited massively from it, on the other hand, it is seen as incredibly wasteful, corrupt and (worst of all) inefficient.

UK (or more specifically England, the other members have their own politics too): The current vogue with the coalition government is the "Big Society" - that people should volunteer more and government should aid them in that, rather than running things themselves. More generally: we have a love-hate relationship with nationalisation of services (NHS, BBC, education, what the trains used to be, etc).

The general consensus seems to be that services such as the NHS (free healthcare at the point of delivery) should remain free and available to all, but also that the service as it is is poor and that it needs to be radically improved (how is highly contentious).

Immigration is a hot-button issue, with all three major political parties taking varying positions, but all with the stated goal of reducing immigration. This is often linked to fears about losing what it means to be "British" and the idea that multiculturalism (especially when applied to Islam) has failed. Others argue that Britishness never actually existed, and we should just get over it.

We also care a lot about the "Youf". Unemployment is high, especially amongst the under 24s. This is often associated socially with stereotypes about "chavs" living on benefits in council estates and contributing nothing to society. This is a particular problem in London and in former mining/manufacturing towns that have lost their primary source of employment. In many of these places the are families with several generations who have never been in recognised employment. Politicians often attempt to speak to "hard working families", which is implied to not include these people.

"Middle England" describes the most "average" political opinions in the country at any time. That is, the views of predominantly lower-middle-class people living in small towns. The town of Rotherham always votes for the winning party in any election, and so is seen as a good gauge of how well politicians are doing with the public.

Creepy Moroccans. A large part of the Dutch populace views them as bothering and currently there is a lot of backlash against the multiculturalism of the Left.

And I think that in most European countries there's also debate about the EU, especially about supporting Greece and Portugal.

EU-Switzerland relations are a major point in Swiss politics, especially as the European Debt Crisis has caused the exchange rate of the Franken to soar, choking Swiss exports not only into the EU but also elsewhere. Then there's the issue of immigration with the umpteenth initiative of the right-wing party SVP to limit immigration. In fact, this was the major point of politics up until the Fukushima disaster, which added nuclear phase-out to the agenda and propelled the more centrist Greens to success in the recent elections. Now, a major issue is the distribution of the seats in the Federal Council (our top executive agency, much like the White House in the US), since the minor party member Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf wants to stay (and most polls support her) to stay in office even tough her party BDP did not gain enough seats to qualify for the Federal Council. Especially since her seat was lost by the SVP when their controversial representative Christoph Blocher was dumped by the other parties and substituted with Schlumpf, who was then expelled by the SVP and part of the SVP that now form the BDP. The SVP can only gain back this seat if they bring in a candidate who is willing to cooperate and not merely an SVP "attack dog". OK, the latter's mor of politics-of-the-day, but hopefully still useful

Goddamn it! I didn't see the dates on the earlier posts, and I thought Robintherose had come back! I was just about to PM her, and ask why she'd vanished without any warning, and . . . I don't even know what I would have said . . .

Romania - Corruption is a very big thing over here, and there is a lot of antipathy against the government, which is still largely dominated by old communist party second-stringers. There seems to be an ugly Double Standard going on, with people openly bragging to their acquaintances about what and how much they'd stolen, especially at former schools/workplaces, but we all feel very strongly about the politicians' similar theft whether we steal or not. From someone who hasn't kept up with the news very well, the main issues of the day seem to revolve around the aforementioned corruption and crime, poverty - especially low wages and high prices, cultral deterioration be it perceived or real, who was or wasn't a Communist activist or collaborator, and in the last years, the (here still ongoing and unabated) financial crisis.

Well, let's expand on that a little, shall we? I, Midnight Rambler, shall explain Dutch politics to whomever it may interest. But before I begin...

A note on the word "Liberal"
In most European countries, it means something else entirely than it does in the US. On this side of the pond, "Liberalism" stands for an ideology with a distrust of government and a passion for individual freedom - it is associated with loose laws, low taxes and a strong free-market, pro-business agenda. Thus, it is in many ways the exact opposite of "liberalism" in the American sense of the word, although it shares with US "liberals" a relaxed, progressive attitude to what conservatives call ethical issues (abortion, gay marriage, drug laws, euthanasia, prostitution... you know the drill). Since I'm discussing the politics of a European country here, I will use the European definition.

Now that that's cleared up, I shall proceed. I'll first explain the Dutch political climate, then the various parties currently represented in the "Second Chamber" (which is comparable to the US House of Representatives or the British House of Commons - the "First Chamber" is our Senate/House of Lords), and finally some issues which have recently been debated to give you a better idea of what Dutch politics is like.

From Polder Model to Polarisation - the Dutch political climate

Back in The '90s, Dutch politics was at its most Dutch. The "polder model", a style of decision-making based on consensus and compromise, reigned supreme. Pragmatism was the norm, and ideological differences were small. This made politics rather boring; the small role of ideologies was exemplified by the fact that Labour and the Liberals (sworn enemies in The '70s and The '80s) were in a coalition together. This meant that for the first time since the introduction of universal suffrage (1919), it was possible to form a government which did not include the Christian Democrats. In their absence, it was possible to introduce very progressive legislation on a number of issues, including abortion, euthanasia, gender equality, and gay rights. There was a feeling that resolving these issues was a finishing touch, and that the country was, for the rest, "complete" - all problems had been solved, and everyone was happy. Or were they?

Turned out, not so much. There were some issues which had been woefully neglected by the political establishment for a couple of decades, including the quality of living in poorer neighbourhoods and the integration of immigrants into Dutch society. As a result, a lot of working-class rage had built up beneath the surface. This rage was seldom voiced, and those who did call attention to it were either ignored or (sometimes correctly) dismissed as racists. But then along came Pim Fortuyn.

Pim Fortuyn was a former lecturer at the University of Groningen with a rather large ego. He entered politics in the early '00s, and immediately attracted a lot of media attention with his controversial right-wing ideas. He joined a small fringe party, was kicked out, and Started His Own party. Many people couldn't stand him, but equally many people enthousiastically cheered him on: at last, the working-class rage mentioned above was voiced by a charismatic, sophisticated leader who knew what he was talking about, rather than by some crazy old bigot as had been the case several times before.

The establishment were caught badly off guard by Fortuyn's rise. The leaders of the big parties, none of them very charismatic, had no idea how to deal with him; some found his ideas (especially on immigration) so despicable that they outright refused to debate him or even shake hands with him. It was May 2002, and general elections were approaching. Fortuyn was being touted as the next Prime Minister; his party was expected to win a huge number of seats in their first election. Then something happened which shocked the nation.

On May 6, 2002, two weeks before the elections, Pim Fortuyn was assassinated by a fanatical animal-rights activist.

The country exploded. Fortuyn's supporters claimed that "The Left" were to blame for his murder; by meeting him with such hostility, they had 'created a climate in which a thing like this was able to happen.' All the major party leaders, especially those of left-wing parties, received lots of death threats from enraged "Fortuynists". This led many of them to quit; a new generation of politicians replaced them. Not only had the atmosphere changed, the faces were now different, as well.

In the elections, Fortuyn's party (named after himself) won a whopping 26 Second Chamber seats out of 150. They joined a right-wing coalition with the Christian Democrats and the Liberals; however, without their leader, they soon proved to be little more than a Quirky Miniboss Squad. The party quickly collapsed due to infighting and sheer incompetence, dragging the government down with it.

What followed were eight years of politicians fumblingly trying to adjust to the changes Fortuyn had brought about. There were four successive governments of various compositions (including the one mentioned above), each headed by the bumbling Christian Democrat Jan Peter Balkenende, none of them very effective. Each of Balkenende's governments fell long before its four-year term was over. In the meanwhile, the Political Correctness Gone Mad which Fortuyn had rebelled against was quickly replaced by a sort of inverse political correctness - you weren't taken seriously if you didn't adopt a "tough", right-wing populist stance on issues like immigration and crime. The existing parties tried to find their place in this new political climate, hesistantly incorporating some of Fortuyn's ideas into their party programmes in a desperate attempt to regain the trust of the "common man". At the same time, a parade of talentless hacks appeared who tried to capitalise on Fortuyn's legacy by launching new right-wing parties. Neither the old parties nor the new ones were very succesful, and people's trust in politicians was at an all-time low.

However, when the disgruntled Liberal MP Geert Wilders left his party and Started His Own, it was quickly clear that he was anything but a talentless hack. He took Fortuyn's aggressive debating style, populist rhetoric and anti-Islam agenda Up To Eleven, to great success. So far, it has earned him 24 Second Chamber seats, a lot of media attention, and an unusual but extremely comfortable position of power (more on that below).

You may have heard of Geert Wilders; his theatrics have earned him some degree of notoriety even outside our borders. Wilders is a Magnificent Bastard who is very good at playing the media and framing the debate. Because of his spectacular, theatrical style, the media consider him Interesting with a capital I, and when he comes up with a proposal, no matter how ridiculous and/or constitutionally impossible, it is News with a capital N. The ridiculous proposal probably won't make it, but that's not the point: the other parties are now forced to respond to this News. In other words, Wilders rarely wins a debate (except through a Chewbacca Defense of the 'shock or confuse your opponent and make them think you are a lost cause and not worth arguing with' variety); rather, he has a huge influence on what is being debated and in which terms.

Due to Wilders's influence, the Dutch political landscape is now as polarised as it was in The '70s; the country is split down the middle between "The Left" and "The Right". In the June 2010 general elections, the right-wing parties managed to win an extremely small majority (78 out of 150 seats) in the Second Chamber; in May 2011, they won the smallest possible majority (38 out of 75 seats) in the First Chamber.

Our current government is composed of two parties: the Liberals and the Christian Democrats. Together, they don't have anything resembling a majority in either Chamber, but they have made a special pact with Wilders's "Freedom Party", enlisting its support on a large number of issues. They can also usually count on the support of a small, radically Christian party.

This leaves Wilders in a ridiculously comfortable position: he is free to criticise the government (which he frequently does, in his usual aggressive tone) and bears no responsibility for its failures, but at the same time, he has a huge influence on government policy and is able to claim credit for any of its successes. In other words, he wields great power without any responsibility - have I mentioned he's a Magnificent Bastard?

Whew, that was a long story. Stay tuned for Part 2: Party At My House! - The political parties and Part 3: Serious Business - the issues.

Finland: Well, we've got three major parties (moderates, central and social democrats) which are all pretty much the same, and a bunch of smaller ones that are too small to really get anything done. Recently, a new extremely right-wing anti-EU and anti-immigration party has gained a lot of popularity, and can potentially shake up the status quo. The sudden popularity of such a party is probably due to the EU dept crisis. While Finland has in general been very tolerant of immigration, recently many people have been voicing a sentiment of "why should we have to pay for other peoples' screw-ups?". Some politicians have even proposed dropping the euro, altough most politicians dismiss such talk. Also, we'll be having a presidential election soon, and the candidates incluse a far-right pundit and a veteran politician with a severely inflated ego, who thinks he's God's gift to Earth despite everybody stopping caring about him decades ago. Luckily the Finnish president has no real power (and it's unlikely for eighter one of those guys to win anyway) so even if one of them wins, all they can do is publically embarass our country.

Also, there's always the thing with Russia, which is still pretty much an elephant in the livingroom. Russia is one of our biggest trade partners, and Russian tourists are becoming a more important source of income every year, but...Let's just say that we aren't looking to buy UA Vs or trying to stop cluster mines from getting banned because we're afraid of getting invaded by Sweden.

edited 5th Jan '12 7:17:51 PM by Nomic

And now for Part 2 of Midnight Rambler's fascinating lecture on the politics of the Netherlands...

Party At My House! - the Dutch political parties

Unlike those of the US or Britain, the Netherlands' legislative bodies are elected through proportional representation. This means that Party X's number of seats is directly proportional to the total number of votes cast for Party X in the entire country. This, of course, leads to a much larger number of parties in Parliament, as well as a more balanced distribution of seats between big and small parties. It should be noted, however, that the latter was not always the case: there used to be a huge difference between the "big" parties (Christian Democrats, Labour and the Liberals) and the "small" ones - for example, in the 1982 Second Chamber elections, these three combined won 128 out of 150 seats, and the smallest of the three won six times as many seats as the fourth-largest party.

In recent years, changing voter preferences have leveled the playing field, and it is now difficult to draw a clear line between "big" and "small" parties. Anyway, let's get this party started! The parties are sorted by their number of seats in the Second Chamber (which is usually considered much more important and interesting than the First). Note that the names aren't always actual translations of their names into English, because that would in many cases just produce meaningless gibberish.

• Liberals (31 seats) - Historically the smallest of the "big three", they are now the largest party in the Second Chamber for the first time in history. As mentioned in my note on the word "Liberal", they have a small-government, pro-business agenda. They believe strongly in individual freedom, and can't stand a paternalistic government that tells people what the right way to live is. Currently in an optimistic, confident mood, because they are the biggest party as well as the senior party in government; however, some within the party are worried about the sacrifice of liberal principles on social issues in order to keep the Freedom Party and the Reformed Party (see below) happy. Current position: In government.
• Labour (30 seats) - The Dutch cousins of Britain's Labour Party. A firmly left-of-center party in The '70s and The '80s, they made a swing to the right in The '90s, then gradually crept leftward again during The Noughties. They still haven't regained their bearings after the rise and fall of Pim Fortuyn: the party is internally divided on just about everything, and thus doesn't have a clear party line it can present to the voters. It also lacks a strong, visionary leader. Current position: In opposition.
• Freedom Party (24 seats) - Geert Wilders's party. To avoid the kind of infighting that blew up Pim Fortuyn's party, Wilders keeps his MPs on a tight leash. There is no internal democracy; the party has no members, and Wilders and one or two of his True Companions basically determine the party line all by themselves. What is this party line? As mentioned before, the Freedom Party is a right-wing populist party. They loathe Islam, and blame Muslim immigrants for all sorts of problems. They consider national parks, cultural activities, foreign aid and sustainability to be 'left-wing hobbies', and have (with varying degrees of success) pushed for budget cuts in these areas. The "Freedom" in their name is usually taken to mean 'freedom to be just like us'. Masters of what Bill Clinton called 'fact-free politics'. Current position: Not in government, but have signed a "support pact" with it, as mentioned before.
• Christian Democrats (21 seats) - Formed in 1977 from two Protestant parties and a Catholic one, the Christian Democrats used to be The Chessmaster of Dutch politics, skilfully playing the negotiation game in order to hold on to power. Except for two Labour-Liberals coalitions in The '90s, there has never been a government without them - or, before 1977, at least one of their predecessors. Positioned in the middle of the political spectrum, they have always had a "right wing" and a "left wing", which occasionally clash with each other. Currently, the Christian Democrats are in even worse straits than Labour. Nobody has any idea what they stand for, and they have no clear leader at all. The party's left wing doesn't feel very comfortable co-operating with the radically right-wing Freedom Party, which leads to a lot of embarrassing moments as the party leadership comes up with increasingly convoluted twists and turns to keep the party together and, most importantly, in power. Current position: In government.
• Socialist Party (15 seats) - Exactly What It Says on the Tin. The leftmost party in the Second Chamber. They are strongly in favour of Big Government, tougher regulations for business (especially banks), and improving the lot of what they call "the non-profitables" (such as temporary workers and the disabled). They are the only party in opposition who have an unambiguous party line and manage to get it across to voters effectively. However, the Dutch intelligentsia don't take them very seriously, usually calling their old-fashioned brand of Socialism Awesome, but Impractical. Current position: In opposition.
• Democrats (10 seats) - Founded in 1966 with the aim to change the political system so that the country might be governed more effectively and more democratically (hence the name). Besides that, they don't have any strong ideological commitments. They have been in many governments, but so far haven't achieved any of their principal goals (such as referenda, elected executive-branch officials, or a different voting system) and seem to have given up trying. They are very progressive when it comes to social and cultural issues, but their stance on the economy is harder to gauge. In short, they're the Jack of All Stats. As an opposition party, they seem more concerned with the form of the current government's actions than with their substance (saying 'this isn't professional', 'this isn't smart' or 'this isn't done by the book' rather than 'this isn't right'). But while their actual position may be vague, they do have a pretty strong image. The Democrats are seen as optimistic, intelligent, reasonable, and even cool. Current position: In opposition.
• Greens (10 seats) - The party I happen to be a member of. Founded in 1989 when four small left-wing parties joined forces. As the name suggests, sustainability is an important theme for us. We're also pretty far to the left on social and economical issues, but unlike the Socialist Party, we want to reform the welfare state rather than preserve it; we have no qualms about chipping away at established rights in order to give those now left in the cold a better deal. Of course, this is a controversial position, both inside and outside of the party. In general, our party has a thing for complex, nuanced solutions to problems. While these may be good solutions (Real Life is pretty complex, after all), they're kind of hard to explain to voters. Which means we have the opposite problem from the Democrats: we do have a clear stance on most issues, but are bad at communicating it. Current position: In opposition.
• Christian Union (5 seats) - Not to be confused with the Christian Democrats. A small religious party, culturally conservative but usually left-wing on economical issues. Generally considered sympathetic, if somewhat strait-laced. Current position: In opposition.
• Party for the Animals (2 seats) - An animal-rights group dressing up as a political party. Annoy the crap out of everyone else with their holier-than-thou tone and their remarkable talent for turning every debate (be it on housing, energy policy or the monarchy) into an animal-rights debate - a variation on Everything Is Racist. Current position: In opposition.
• Reformed Party (2 seats) - The Fundamentalist. The voice of the small minority of orthodox Protestants in the Netherlands (orthodoxy, of course, is relative; they're probably very moderate by American standards). Über-conservative on social and cultural issues, and firmly on the right economically. Hated by a lot of people. Especially by feminists, because they exclude women from any form of office within the party; attempts to take them to court on this blatantly sexist policy haven't been very succesful. The government is dependent on them for a majority in the First Chamber; they gleefully exploit the influence this gives them. Current position: Formally in opposition, but usually support the government.

edited 25th Mar '12 10:48:42 AM by MidnightRambler

Thank you, Midnight Rambler. Very much.

edited 7th Jan '12 11:17:53 AM by JHM

Swiss politics can be very... um... local at times. I'll never forget that wonderful debate I witnessed for 2 hours on TSR (Television Suisse Romande) about the proposed changes to various milk tariffs in the Canton of Vaud and the various impacts it would have. Fascinating. Especially as I was in Canton Fribourg at the time. And some of the representatives from various other Cantons didn't seem to give a monkey's as it wasn't happening to them. BTW, only TSR 1 was [bleep] working on that TV.

International politics is one thing, but to really get the Swiss interested, it needs to be local. And bashing Appenzell (take a pick which one) helps. That is, if you're not in Appenzell. Then, it's picking on the other side of the border.

EDIT: whoops, forgot to add this... God help you if you're a foreigner and you try to wade into these debates. You'll be ganged up on and suddenly facing the combined might of the Swiss Confederation. Particularly if you're Italian.

edited 7th Jan '12 6:02:07 PM by Euodiachloris

All right, now for the third and final episode...

Serious Business - The Issues

As mentioned before, the Netherlands are in a time of polarisation right now. Our current government is more right-wing than any government we've had since... sometime in the Interbellum, I guess. Wilders has managed to frame things like National Parks, cultural activities and foreign aid as "left-wing hobbies" and has, often successfully, pushed for budget cuts in these areas. The government cuts a lot of budgets, in general; they're hell-bent on reducing the budget deficit by 18 billion Euros (which is a lot of money in a small country like ours). They hardly reform anything, though. The "polder model" has gone out the door; the government rests on a ridiculously slim majority in both Chambers, but it implements pretty radical policies while mostly ignoring local authorities, trade unions, interest groups and the advice of experts. Anyway, here are some of the issues we've been debating lately:

• Homeowners' Tax Break: This is actually called the hypotheekrenteaftrek or 'mortgage interest subtraction'. It means that if you have a mortgage, anything you pay in interest over it is subtracted from your income before calculating how much income tax you have to pay. It was established around 1900 to stimulate homeownership; currently, the Netherlands are the only country in the world that still has this system. All the opposition parties, as well as most economists, are in favour of gradually reducing or abolishing this tax break. It locks up the market by inflating house prices (by enabling people to afford a bigger mortgage and thus a more expensive home), and rewards people for having debts. For the Left, another important argument is that the tax break favours the rich - only homeowners receive it, and the more expensive your home, the more you can 'subtract'. It thus effectively redistributes wealth upwards. The government has declared it a taboo subject, though, fearing to lose the support of the middle-class homeowner. Some also argue that merely debating the subject is a bad idea, because uncertainty over the system's future will cause panic on the housing market.
• Mauro Manuel: One of our more embarrassing moments. Mauro Manuel came to the Netherlands from Angola at the age of nine, and was raised by Dutch foster parents from that moment on. However, he will soon turn eighteen (and thus legally an adult), and is now in the rather Kafkaesque situation that he will be forced to go back to Angola. Dutch immigration law is full of surprises... The Left mounted a massive campaign to let him stay, but the government maintained that 'the law is the law' and that letting Mauro stay in the Netherlands would set a precedent; there were a couple of thousand children in similar situations, whom the government would also have to allow to stay here if they did so for Mauro. The Christian Democrats were divided on the issue, and came up with increasingly convoluted ways to postpone the issue, such as a "student's visa" for Mauro - who wasn't going to university at all, but into vocational education (for which you can't get a student's visa). They held a party conference on the issue, where a resolution was passed that was worded very ambiguously so as to keep everyone happy. Naturally, this only created further confusion; right now, your guess is as good as mine as to what's going to happen to poor Mauro.
• Motorway Speed Limits: The speed limit on Dutch motorways has been 120 km/h for a long time. The Liberals and the Freedom Party, always eager to please the motorist, have campaigned to raise it to 130 km/h - and now that the former is in government and the latter has the government on its leash, the speed limit has been raised, sure enough. This is a rather egregious example of what we Dutch call symboolpolitiek: symbolical politics, policies that don't really change anything and only serve as a gratuitous way of saying to voters, 'We're doing something about this!' The Netherlands are so small that you'll save, at most, one or two minutes on a car journey; what's worse, this change in the speed limit increases pollution, and it costs the government 132 million Euros to adjust the roads in such a way that they may be safely driven on at 130 km/h. But hey, we get to drive faster! Woo!