(Reforms; 04-03; p.2)
The chronicle of German home affairs in April
does not bring to light something substantially new: it is still
about reforming the systems of social security.
The arguments are widely known, even if not
everyone involved names them as clearly as desirable. So, some
politicians who are interested in maximising votes avoid singling
out the winners and losers of the reforms, they suggest. Lobbyists,
in turn, are not keen to name the advantages for their respective
pressure group but claim "factual constraints" (which
are usually construed).
Shifts in the political process
Not regarding the contents of debates, one may
detect remarkable behaviours of the ones involved. This goes for
the government as well as for the opposition and the scientists
chosen.
MPs of the major ruling party, the Social-Democrats
(SPD), succeeded in initiating a debate in which the topics for
bargaining were not - as usual - already streamlined by upper
party officials.
It is, however, an idiosyncrasy of German political culture to
rather dislike this democratically legitimising and therefore
a process that one should demand: in Germany, disputes are rather
unpopular.
That is, why accusations of the Christian-Democratic
opposition that the chancellor lacked leading strength are too
obvious. Beside the known effort to profit from ostensible deficiencies
of the political competitor, some other factors may lead to such
behaviour.
(read on here)