Author: Vinícius Bivar

Financiando a Universidade: Alemanha x Estados Unidos

Financiando a Universidade: Alemanha x Estados Unidos

By |

Em texto publicado pela plataforma Quillette, o advogado e professor americano Andrew Hammel argumenta em favor da cobrança de mensalidade em universidades alemãs. Educado nos Estados Unidos, Hammel parte de sua referência, o sistema americano, para avaliar as fragilidades das universidades alemãs apontando razões, que na sua visão, justificariam a cobrança de taxas universitárias mais elevadas que as atualmente praticadas pelas universidades germânicas.

Tendo passado também por ambos os sistemas de ensino, americano e alemão, alguns dos argumentos apresentados por Hammel me parecem razoáveis. A quantidade excessiva de serviço administrativo a qual são submetidos os professores, aliada a regulação algumas vezes demasiado rígida da proporção professores x estudantes baseada em uma população universitária que se expandiu consideravelmente nos últimos anos por vezes compromete a capacidade dos professores de se dedicar a sua atividade fim de lecionar e acompanhar de forma mais próxima os estudantes. A ausência de escritórios de acompanhamento psicológico ou de carreira em muitas universidades alemãs também é ponto que pesa a favor das universidades americanas que tendem a preparar melhor os estudantes para o mercado de trabalho.  

Apesar de razoáveis, os problemas apontados por Hammel, em sua maioria, parecem advir não da ausência de cobrança de mensalidades, mas de profundas diferenças culturais entre a forma como alemães e americanos enxergam a universidade e seu papel social. O autor cita, por exemplo, a baixa proporção de cidadãos com qualificação universitária na Alemanha em relação a outros países da OCDE. Essa proporção é tradicionalmente baixa na Alemanha já que, como cita o autor, o sistema de ensino alemão seleciona ainda no ensino básico alunos com aptidão para receber educação universitária. A educação vocacional tem tradicionalmente um papel importante no sistema de ensino alemão e, diferentemente do que ocorre nos EUA, várias profissões, inclusive nas áreas de engenharia e saúde, são lecionadas em instituições voltadas para a educação profissional. Nos últimos anos, porém, é perceptível o crescimento no interesse dos pais em fornecer uma educação universitária aos filhos o que aliado a queda nas taxas de natalidade tem acentuado a carência de profissionais com formação vocacional no país.

Hammel também critica a estrutura das universidades e a falta de motivação dos alunos alemães em comparação com os americanos baseado em sua experiência como professor. Apesar da “feiura” dos campi universitários alemães a qual o autor faz referência, problemas de infraestrutura não são reclamação frequente entre estudantes e professores. Investimento em manutenção das instalações é constante e a preocupação com a funcionalidade parece suplantar, na visão dos alemães, o problema estético apontado pelo autor. A desmotivação dos alunos também parece não ter relação com a cobrança de mensalidade, mas ser outro fruto do pragmatismo germânico. Me parece pouco comum entre os jovens alemães o deslumbramento em relação a universidade. Ouço com frequência pelos corredores relatos em que a universidade figura apenas como mero passo no processo de entrada no mercado de trabalho que com cada vez mais frequência inclui como elemento quase obrigatório um mestrado. Diferentemente das universidades americanas, a presença do aluno em sala não é obrigatória, e se o professor não entrega uma aula de qualidade o aluno pode simplesmente estudar em casa e realizar a prova o que talvez explique experiências relatadas pelo autor.

Apesar dos pontos apresentados aqui, o debate sobre a cobrança de mensalidade é legítimo. A redução da dependência, e consequentemente da ingerência do Estado no funcionamento das instituições de ensino superior é talvez um dos melhores argumentos nesse sentido. Apesar de protegida pela constituição, a autonomia universitária não é imune a ataques, como vimos, por exemplo, no Brasil em episódios recentes. O caso do estado de Baden-Württemberg, que reúne algumas das melhores universidades alemãs, também oferece subsídios para um interessante debate. O estado optou por cobrar mensalidades mais elevadas de estudantes internacionais, não por falta de dinheiro, mas por consideras que o custo da educação de desses estudantes não deve sair do bolso de pagadores de impostos alemães. Em resumo, Hammel levanta um debate válido e pertinente, mas apresenta argumentos simples e pouco sólidos que me parecem derivados das expectativas de um americano acerca do que deve ser uma universidade, expectativa muitas vezes distinta daquela dos alemães.

Social Democrats vote in favor of coalition talks in Germany

Social Democrats vote in favor of coalition talks in Germany

By |

With a difference of less than 100 votes, the social democratic party (SPD) have decided to continue coalition talks with Merkel’s Christ Democrats (CDU). This was an important victory for Merkel as she would be forced, in case of a “no” vote, to build a minority government or call for new elections, scenarios in which Germany would remain without a government for several months. The vote, however, means no commitment to a coalition. Exploratory talks are likely to continue until a final agreement is reached which will also require the approval of SPD members to become binding. With this result, Germany is likely to have a government by Easter.

It was not an easy win for SPD leader Martin Schulz. He faced a fierce resistance within the party, in particular from its youth movements, who spearheaded the campaign against a reedition of a Great Coalition. Despite the victory, the “yes” from his party was no carte blanche for Schulz. During the afternoon debates in the SPD congress in Bonn, several party members highlighted the role of the SPD as an alternative to the conservative alliance led by Merkel and the cap for refugees as a redline for the party to agree on taking part in the new government. The cap for refugees was one of the themes covered by the preliminary agreement between the SPD and the CDU earlier this week which will likely have to be renegotiated if Schulz wants his part to approve a coalition agreement.

Another concern among SPD member is the electoral success of their party. Last elections were the worst result ever for the social democrats who lost votes not only on the left but also the populist right-wing AfD. Largely to blame is the lack of an SPD footprint in the last government. Merkel hijacked the social agenda of the social democrats trapping Schulz into a situation in which the SPD and CDU had no meaningful divergences that justified his candidacy to the chancellorship. Merkel also paid her price for this move and had to witness a rebellion of its more conservative voters, many of whom also migrated to the AfD.

The result of the vote this afternoon is also good news for Germany’s European partners, in particular France, country that, since the election of Emmanuel Macron, became Germany’s closest ally. Merkel and Macron met this week to discuss their joint vision for a post-Brexit Europe which includes new plans for European defense and the economy of the Eurozone. With the need for new elections or a minority government in Germany, Macron and Merkel would likely have to halt their agenda of reforms missing an important window left by the pessimistic atmosphere regarding the impact of Brexit in the economy of the UK. Differently from the issue of refugees, the strengthening the European Union is a topic in which the CDU and the SPD are aligned. An increase in the German budget for the EU was already agreed in the preliminary talks between the two parties and will hardly be an issue in the weeks to come.

Although the approval of the SPD this afternoon is no guarantee of successful talks, Schulz cleared his way to at least move on with negotiations, also with a much better idea of the limits imposed by his party on sensitive topics such as the refugees’ cap. Both parties, CDU and SPD, seem willing to prevent a minority government or new elections, however, as Schulz stressed in his remarks before the vote, “we must not govern at any cost, but neither should we refuse to govern at any cost”. Complex negotiations will follow, but unless an unbridgeable gap emerges between Merkel’s and Schulz’s parties, the most likely outcome is a new Great Coalition.

Merkel won, but what now?

Merkel won, but what now?

By |

Last night, headlines from all major newspapers enthusiastically announced the victory of Angela Merkel and her party, the CDU, in the German Federal Elections. A few minutes after the first exit polls were released, however, the enthusiasm of journalists and analysts of German politics began to fade. The sister parties CDU/CSU, although remaining in the lead, performed close to their worst result ever. Their most likely allies, the Liberal Democrats (FDP), performed well, but still not enough to make a solely Black-Yellow coalition majoritarian. With the refusal of the Social Democrats (SPD) to form another Grand Coalition, Merkel is left with a single and very difficult coalition option to negotiate, the Jamaica Coalition (CDU/CSU-FDP-Greens).

If confirmed, this unprecedented coalition will bring together parties with diametrically opposed views. Besides putting environmental concerns on the top of their agenda, the Greens are fervent critics of liberal economic policies and big businesses. They openly criticized the Liberal Democrats during the campaign, leading Christian Lindner, leader of the FDP, to state coalition negotiations depends on the Greens revising their criticism against his party.

On the other hand, environmental issues are not even near to the top of the FDP’s agenda. Although not identified as eurosceptics, the FDP opposes vehemently any attempt to grant more power to EU institutions. That position threatens to undermine the ongoing Franco-German negotiations for EU reform, that would include a common budget and a Finance Minister for the bloc. In the elephant round, traditional debate between the leaders of all major parties following the election, Lindner also suggested his party objects increasing investment in the military which might create obstacles for the Merkel-Macron proposals for an EU collective security framework.

At the moment, no scenario is discarded. In case coalition negotiations fail, a new election, a minority government or a reedition of the Grand Coalition are all possible outcomes. We will only know for sure by the end of the year as negotiations are scheduled to be concluded shortly before Christmas.

The rise of the AfD

Another enduring question of this election is the expressive voting of the right-wing nationalist party Alternative for Germany (AfD). In this election, the AfD became the third major party in German politics. Not only did they win in the state of Saxony but were the second largest party in East Germany only behind Merkel’s CDU.

Polls are conflicting on whether the question of refugees played a role. Earlier polls indicate the issue of refugees was no longer a top priority for German voters. Exit polls released on election day, however, point out that concerns over refugees played a major role in the election. According to a poll commissioned by German broadcaster ARD, 90% of Germans want faster deportations and 71% want to limit the number of migrants entering the country. Also, 57% manifested concern regarding the influence of Islam in Germany, positions associated with the platform of the AfD. Curiously, the voting for the AfD cannot be associated with direct contact with foreigners. While most AfD voters live in East Germany, the majority of immigrants currently live in West Germany.

Concern over refugees, however, does not suffice to explain the surge of the AfD. Analysis of the origins of the AfD voters reveal that the populist party received voters from all over the political spectrum. The AfD won from the CDU alone approximately 1 million voters, followed by half a million from the SPD, and 400.000 from the Left Party. These figures highlight Merkel’s fragility among the more conservative circles of her party. In her current term as chancellor, the coalition with the SDP allowed the chancellor to flirt with the left, opening her right flank to the rise of the AfD. This became evident during the TV-Debate between Merkel and Schulz as the two candidates demonstrated a degree of agreement unlikely to be seen in political adversaries.

So far, the strategy of CDU and SPD is to ignore and isolate the AfD in the German Parliament. This strategy, however, might be precisely what the AfD needs to remain as a major force in German politics. As other populist movements, the AfD capitalized on its role as an outsider. Evidence of that are the almost 1.2 million AfD voters who did not vote in previous elections. Those perceive the AfD as the anti-system party and the isolation of the AfD might reinforce that perception. Perhaps bringing the AfD to the table would be a wiser strategy, but it is also early to tell what tone will the AfD adopt while in Parliament.

What now?

The election campaign was indeed quite boring. The government coming out of it, however, will be anything but boring. Right at the start, Merkel has a very difficult coalition negotiation ahead of her. As she vowed not to work with the AfD, now third major party in the Bundestag, Merkel’s best chance at forming a government is bringing together the antagonistic Greens and Free Democrats. But even if she succeeds at forming the Jamaica coalition, Merkel’s fourth term as chancellor is likely to be filled with compromises and constrained by the disagreements between her junior coalition partners. Any major reform, at domestic or EU level, will become a herculean task and the hoped Franco-German alliance will be constantly put to test.

Far from being gone, the specter of right-wing populism will continue to haunt the European Union. Whether populist parties will return in the next elections is entirely dependent on whether or not Macron and Merkel will succeed in addressing the concerns of these marginalized voters and preserving the economic stability in their respective countries. The necessity to counter the influence of the AfD is likely to lead the new German government more to the right. Stricter policies on refugees and immigrants are likely to be put in place and European integration is likely to experience a new halt or move at a very slow pace. If taken forward, the Macron-Merkel EU reforms will face severe opposition, not only from the AfD, but also from within Merkel’s coalition.

It is certainly not the scenario Merkel expected for her (possible) last term as Chancellor of Germany. She will now fight for her legacy in a very adverse context. We will most likely see a more conservative version of the German chancellor, entrenched in domestic politics and playing a more discreet role in international affairs. It does not mean Germany will be a less relevant actor in world affairs, but the priority now is to restore political stability, prevent fragmentation, and prepare Germany for the next Chancellor.

German Elections: What to expect from German foreign policy?

German Elections: What to expect from German foreign policy?

By |

Following the election of Donald Trump and the adoption of his bully-inspired diplomacy, the world has increasingly looked at Germany as the country who can uphold the post-war international order. As we approach election day, however, the absence of foreign policy issues on the debates and speeches of the candidates became evident. In that sense, the debate organized by the German broadcaster Deutsche Welle is a notable exception. With the presence of representatives from the six major parties running for seats in the German parliament, the debate covered issues such as North Korea, Donald Trump, Russia, and Brexit, also addressing the current situation in Turkey, NATO and the issue of migrants and refugees.

Overview

Despite the heated atmosphere of the debate, confrontations between the candidates were infrequent. Only the topics of sanctions against Russia and Brexit sparked provocations targeted mainly at the Christine Anderson, representative of the right-wing populist party AfD. As one would expect, she was the dissonant voice in those issues arguing for the lifting of the sanctions against Russia and praising Britain for its decision to leave the European Union. Anderson also maintained her party’s stance on refugees advocating for the closure of the German borders to refugees. The audience, that refrained from demonstrating through most of the event, jeered as Anderson said she does not feel safe to walk the streets alone anymore.

The representative of the Greens, Omid Nouripour, was also emphatic in some points of the debate, in particular during the discussions on the increase of Germany’s defense budget and Russia’s annexation of Crimea. He equated spending 2% of the GDP on the military, as stated on the NATO Treaty, to burning money, arguing the increase would not lead to a more secure Germany, calling for a reform of the German military and for a more effective spending of the current national security budget.

The topic was followed by a question on Donald Trump and the reliability of the US as an ally. Angela Merkel and Martin Schulz, main contenders for the chancellorship, have both manifested their reservations against Donald Trump. Merkel earlier this year, after her meetings with Trump during the NATO and G7 meeting and Schulz during the TV Debate with Merkel earlier this month. The representative of the SPD, Ralf Stegner, however, contradicted the leader of his party stating that Germany must talk to Trump. When questioned by presenter Tim Sebastian, Stegner evoked freedom of speech to justify his disagreement with Schulz. Like in the TV Debate, the SPD representative was in a delicate situation to criticize the foreign policy of the current government. Since 2013 the German Foreign Office has been headed by the member of the SPD, first Frank-Walter Steinmeier, now president of Germany, and currently by Sigmar Gabriel. Like Schulz, Stegner had a modest role in the debate and failed to justify the rupture with the current administration.

CDU

Member of the Foreign Affairs Committees of his party and of the German parliament, Andreas Nick, the representative of Merkel’s CDU, adopted a more conservative tone regarding issues like the migrant and refugee crisis. When questioned, Nick defended Merkel’s decision to welcome migrants and refugees, however, he denied his party would repeat such policy. Instead, Nick advocated for a legal migration framework that secures German borders and improves the livelihood in countries that are major sources of migrants.

The representative of the CDU argued Germany can play a bigger role in foreign affairs and defended non-military solutions to the current crisis with North Korea and the Ukraine. According to Nick, Germany should be constructive relations with Russia. Nick welcome the collaboration with Russia in Syria but criticized the regime of Vladimir Putin for supporting Bashar Al-Assad. According to the CDU representative, a similar approach should be taken with Turkey. Nick stressed the importance of maintaining an open dialogue with Erdogan, however, conditioned it to the respect for human rights and the preservation of the rule of law. His positions can be interpreted as evidence of the potential right-leaning positions of the new government if Merkel’s victory is confirmed on Sunday.

Latin America

After the debate, I had the chance to have a brief conversation with Andreas Nick (CDU) and Omid Nouripour (Greens) about Latin America and the future of its partnership with Germany and the EU. Both politicians demonstrated concern with the recent developments in the region.

Andreas Nick attributed the relatively distant relations between Germany and the region to pressing problems closer to home and the instability in the region. He demonstrated optimism, however, regarding the trade agreement negotiations between the EU and Mercosur and pointed to Argentina as a success case in the region and an example to be followed. His position seems to be shared by Chancellor Merkel and other European nations. While in a trip to South America to pass the presidency of the G20 to President Mauricio Macri, Merkel praised the new Argentine government for its achievements and acknowledged her sympathy to the measures put in place by President Macri.

Omid Nouripour, on the other hand, highlighted the importance of Brazil but, at the same time, criticizing heavily the administration of President Michel Temer. He demonstrated particular concern with the recent social and environmental policies enacted by Temer’s administration and with the political crisis engulfing the South American nation at the moment.

The considerations by the German politicians reflect perfectly the current image of Latin America since the beginning of the economic and political crises in the region. Once a prominent partner and active in multilateral forums, the participation of Latin America in major international issues was eclipsed by the internal problems many countries in the region currently face. The risk, however, is that a further retreat from international stage compromises initiatives that could contribute to the region’s economic recovery and to the establishment of political instability.

Debate: Schulz fails to impress German voters

Debate: Schulz fails to impress German voters

By |

A night with no surprises. Angela Merkel and Martin Schulz starred a rather boring and predictable debate where several major issues were neglected or altogether absent. The format certainly did not help. The four (yes, four!) presenters that took turns at asking questions to Ms. Merkel and Mr. Schulz rarely confronted the candidates on their points of disagreement, posed few follow-up questions, and poorly managed the time dedicated to each topic on the agenda. While the topic of refugees, an issue relevant only to 29% of German voters, occupied the first thirty minutes of the scheduled 90 min debate, issues such as the German housing market, education, and the digital economy received little or no attention from the candidates or the moderators.

Circumstances also did not help Mr. Schulz. Going on the offensive, as many expected would mean criticizing his own party (SPD), current partner in the governing coalition, reason that probably led Schulz to adopt a more diplomatic approach. However, as the topic went on from the issue of refugees to Turkey, spectators witnessed a debate where the opposing parties disagreed only mildly on most issues. Schulz and Merkel agreed, with minor differences, on the issue of refugees, on Muslim integration and on the accession of Turkey to the EU. By the mark of 45 min., the only major disagreement between the candidates was on “road tolls”, certainly not the most important issue on the agenda of the next Chancellor.

Highlights

Refugees: Merkel defended her decision to admit refugees during the 2015 crisis. Schulz agreed but highlighted the lack of coordination between Germany and the other European partners.

Integration: Both candidates acknowledged integrating migrants is a complicated task. None of them, however, questioned the feasibility of that task. For both candidates, Muslims can be fully integrated into the German society.

North Korea: Both candidates agree with a diplomatic solution. Schulz, however, questioned the ability of President Donald Trump to manage this crisis. Merkel, on the other hand, argued a solution without the American president would be difficult.

Turkey: Considered Schulz main foreign policy blunder. The SPD candidate promised to cease conversations on the Turkish accession to the EU. Although she claimed to have held this position earlier than her opponent, Merkel was more cautious and diplomatic defending conversations should be conditioned to the maintenance of Turkish democratic order.

Security: Both candidates agreed preventive measures should be taken to combat terrorism. Neither Merkel nor Schulz provided details of how this should be done.

Dieselgate: Schulz criticized Merkel for being too slow to respond to the revelations that VW cheated pollution tests. Merkel responded by saying the carmakers must “right their wrongs” but did not go into detail on how and when this will occur.

Social welfare: As expected, the point in which Schulz had his best performance. The leader of the SPD highlighted the situation of poor pensioners while the current Chancellor dodged by appealing to her job creation record.

A return of the Great Coalition

Perhaps the most relevant question of the debate was regarding the possibility of a reedition of the current coalition (CDU+SPD). Although Schulz attempted to dodge the question by stating he “wants to be Chancellor”, none of the candidates ruled out the possibility of a Grand Coalition government following the election on September 24. As opinion polls indicate, Merkel’s CDU is likely to remain short of a majority without the Schulz’s SPD. Other possible coalition partners, the Free Democrats (FDP) and the Greens (Grüne) are performing poorly in latest polls and a coalition involving solely one of these parties might not be enough for the CDU to reach the 299 MPs required to form a stable government. A Jamaica coalition (CDU+FDP+Grüne) would place Merkel in a delicate position of having to reconcile partners with very different and often opposing agendas. Merkel ruled out any possible partnership with the right-wing populists of the Alternative for Germany (AfD). Thus, despite the frictions that emerged between CDU and SPD during the campaign, a Grand Coalition would grant Merkel a solid majority and a stable government likely to support the reforms she intends to implement at national and European levels.

Potential Impact on Election Results

Merkel might not have won the debate, but Schulz certainly lost. This was the last major opportunity for the SPD candidate to change the scenario in favor of his party and he failed. A poll released by German broadcaster ARD immediately after the debate revealed 55% of the spectators found Merkel more persuasive and 64% perceived the German Chancellor as more competent than her adversary.

These figures, however, do not mean the CDU will experience an increase in its performance in the polls. Perceived as the clear winner of this election, Merkel’s party is likely to remain steady or even decrease in the event of a low turnout. During the debate, Merkel also did not appeal to the more conservative part of her base who probably saw with discomfort the level of agreement between the Chancellor and Martin Schulz. The exception was, perhaps, when Merkel was asked about marriage equality. Despite providing indications earlier this year that she is personally in favor of marriage equality, the Chancellor rambled in an attempt not to upset CDU’s more conservative sister party from Bavaria, the Christian Social Union (CSU). The AfD is the party expected to benefit from those voters unsatisfied with Merkel’s flirting with the left.

The SPD, on the other hand, might experience a more substantial loss in the next polls. Schulz failed to present himself as an alternative to Merkel, and instead laid bare the similarities between his positions and those of the Chancellor. This might benefit the other two major parties on the left of the political spectrum, the Greens and the Left (Linke).

Despite the likely fluctuations in the polls, the impact of the debate tends not to be strong enough to alter the outcome. Merkel will win and the SPD will be the second largest party in the parliament. However, in order to determine what type of government will Merkel’s fourth term be, we need to wait for who will come out third and what coalitions will be formed following September 24.

German Elections One Month Ahead

German Elections One Month Ahead

By |

We are now just one month ahead of the 2017 German federal elections and, contrary to what many expected earlier this year, the result is likely to be an easy win for German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Latest polls suggest that Merkel’s party, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), will secure around 39% of the seats in the Bundestag on September 24, guaranteeing Merkel’s fourth term as chancellor of Germany. Although these figures would represent of loss of seats for the CDU, the party and its leader have much to celebrate. Merkel began the year with plummeting approval rates, reaching a historic low of 38%, as doubts about the future of the European Union dominated the debates in the international press. However, as months passed by, events and home and abroad turned the tide in favor of the German chancellor.

The French elections marked the beginning of Merkel’s upturn. The defeat of Marine Le Pen was a hard blow on Eurosceptic parties in Europe, which were expecting the leader of the Front National to further weaken the European Union with the possibility of a Frexit. Concomitantly, news about refugees were losing momentum, undermining the position of the right-wing populist parties such as the Alternative for Germany (AfD). Although their performance in the polls seems to have stabilized around the 9%, the AfD experienced a steady decline since the French election motivated, among other factors, by disputes within the party.

Merkel accumulated political victories in the weeks following the French election. In mid-May, Merkel’s CDU performed greatly in the regional election, managing to win the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, home to nearly a quarter of the German population and stronghold of its coalition partner and current adversary at the federal level, the Social Democratic Party (SPD). By the end of the month, Merkel changed the tone of her discourse adopting a firm stance on European affairs, seizing the opportunity given by the disastrous European tour of the American president Donald Trump. Although not quoting them directly, Merkel openly criticized Britain and the United States and argued it was time for Europeans to take their destinies into their own hand. The speech was well received by the German public opinion as demonstrated by polls conducted in June showing the SPD 10 points behind the CDU and Merkel’s popularity almost 30 points above that of Schultz.

The months of July, August and September saw the gap between to two parties widen. Immigration and refugees are no longer first page topics in the German media and not a top priority for most Germans. Concurrently, unemployment rates have been decreasing, reaching 3.8% in June, and wages are expected to grow around 2.5% a year, while inflation remains below 2%. Consequently, Merkel consolidated her image among the Germans as a source of steady and effective leadership making it hard for the Martin Schultz and the SPD to reverse the current scenario.

Can the SPD still win?

It is certainly not impossible. A recent poll published by the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine indicates 46% of German voters remain undecided, sparking fears of a low turnout as 45% declared they believe the result is already decided in favor of the CDU. In addition, the preoccupations of German voters seem to be aligned with the center-left platform of the SPD, factor that, if exploited effectively, could lead to a better performance by the party led by Martin Schultz.

However, a victory by Shultz and the SPD seems highly unlikely. Merkel’s record as chancellor speaks for itself, making Germans less likely to bet on replacing the current chancellor, perceived as a source of stability and security. Moreover, Merkel neutralized the SPD by adopting elements of its domestic and foreign agenda during her previous term as chancellor. Thus, despite Schultz’s best efforts, his proposals for improvements in Germans education and social welfare, issues popular among German voters, do not resonate as something distinctly associated with the Social Democrats.

What to expect from Merkel’s fourth term?

If projections are confirmed, however, Merkel is likely to face serious challenges already in the first days following the election. With the dissolution of the Great Coalition (CDU + SPD), Merkel is likely to be short of a majority in the Bundestag which might create obstacles to the approval of more conservative points on her agenda, including the increase in Germany’s defense investments, crucial to the Franco-German project of a European Defense Union.

Without the SPD, CDU is likely to partner once more with the pro-business Free Democratic Party (FDP), repeating the governing coalition during Merkel’s second term as chancellor. However, if the current figures are confirmed, the CDU will remain short of a majority since the FDP is currently scoring only 9% in the polls. Merkel’s hopes are, therefore, deposited in convincing those undecided, hoping perhaps for a surprising increase in the number of votes for the FDP. Although Merkel’s record allows her some flexibility around the center of the political spectrum, a government formed by a CDU/FDP coalition will possibly result in a more liberal, right-leaning version of Merkel, and attempt to appease its allies resentful of being left out of the parliament after supporting Merkel between 2009 and 2013. In CDU and FDP fail to reach majority the Greens are likely to be the ones included, forming what is known as the Jamaica coalition. Considering that scenario, Merkel would have trouble reconciling some antagonistic positions of her allies such as FDPs proposal of tax cuts and the Greens desire to tax the “super-rich”.

In sum, the scenario one month ahead of the Germany federal election is complex and, although Angela Merkel will probably secure her fourth term as chancellor, the leader of the CDU has a turbulent path ahead of her. For now, we can do little more than waiting until September 24 when we will finally know what kind of government Germans have chosen for themselves.
Novo rumo para a política europeia

Novo rumo para a política europeia

By |

Em 13 de junho, líderes nas áreas de economia e finanças da União Europeia e dos Estados Unidos, incluindo o Ministro das Finanças alemão Wolfgang Schäuble, encontraram-se em Berlim para o G20 Day, evento que antecede a reunião de cúpula do G20 programada para os dias 7 e 8 de julho deste ano em Hamburgo.

Foram debatidos ao longo do dia alguns dos temas que farão parte da agenda do encontro de julho tais como a construção de um sistema financeiro mais resiliente, o impacto das novas tecnologias na área de finanças e políticas de combate as mudanças climáticas. Contudo, foi o atual cenário político europeu que ganhou destaque, sobretudo na fala do ministro alemão. Antes ameaçado pela ascensão de partidos de extrema-direita, pelo Brexit, e pelo impacto da eleição de Donald Trump, o projeto de integração europeu parece ter ganhado novo fôlego. Schäuble, bem como os panelistas que o antecederam, foram enfáticos na defesa de uma maior integração europeia como resposta para os desafios que o bloco vem enfrentando desde a crise de 2008.

Entre os eventos que motivaram essa mudança de postura, a eleição de Emmanuel Macron merece destaque. O novo presidente francês vem se mostrando favorável ao aprofundamento da integração europeia sobretudo nas áreas fiscal e de defesa, projetos também apoiados pelo governo da chanceler Angela Merkel, que, por sua vez, também vem adotando uma postura mais enfática em relação ao papel da União Europeia na manutenção da ordem internacional.

Em comício na Baviera, a chanceler alemã afirmou que os europeus “devem tomar seu destino nas próprias mãos” e que “o tempo em que a Europa podia contar completamente com seus aliados havia, de certa forma, ficado para trás”. Apesar de não o citar nominalmente, o discurso de Merkel faz clara referência a performance desastrosa de Donald Trump nas reuniões de cúpula do G7 e da OTAN em abril. Para além de criar entraves aos debates sobre a implementação do Acordo de Paris, e posteriormente retirar-se do acordo, Trump se negou a endossar o artigo 5º do Tratado do Atlântico Norte criando uma atmosfera de incerteza em relação ao comprometimento dos EUA com a aliança atlântica.

O presidente estadunidense também foi tema nos debates da última terça. Ao ser questionado sobre o futuro da parceria entre a União Europeia e os Estados Unidos, Schäuble afirmou que os EUA continuarão a ser um importante parceiro da UE, no entanto, a Europa continuará trabalhando, agora de forma independente, em áreas como o combate as mudanças climáticas.

Para além da eleição de Macron e do isolacionismo de Trump, a incerteza em relação a forma como se dará a saída do Reino Unido da União Europeia também contribuiu para a mudança de postura dos líderes europeus em relação ao futuro da UE. Os negociadores britânicos que, ao que indicam as declarações da primeira-ministra Theresa May, se preparavam para um “hard Brexit”, saída irrestrita do Reino Unido do mercado comum europeu, agora trabalham para reformular sua estratégia de negociação após o revés sofrido pela primeira-ministra que perdeu sua maioria no parlamento em eleições convocadas por ela mesma em abril.

A incerteza em relação ao Brexit foi tema recorrente no evento em Berlim. Apesar do cenário atual apontar para um “soft Brexit”, em que o Reino Unido teria acesso ao mercado comum, porém sem representação nas instituições europeias e possivelmente seria forçado a aceitar a livre circulação de pessoas, bens, serviços e capital, a fala de Schäuble parece indicar que a estratégia da UE não sofreu alterações e que o bloco continuará se preparando para o pior cenário. Isso inclui tomar medidas preventivas para reduzir o impacto da saída do Reino Unido no sistema bancário e financeiro do bloco. O ministro, contudo, não deu maiores detalhes sobre quais seriam essas medidas.

Apesar do tom diplomático, as considerações de Schäuble durante o G20 Day em Berlim deixam claro a mudança de tom do discurso alemão. Fortalecida pelo apoio de Macron, Merkel enxergou no contexto adverso uma oportunidade, ou talvez a necessidade, de fortalecer a União Europeia e a posição de liderança do bloco na manutenção da ordem internacional. Caberá agora ao povo alemão decidir nas eleições de setembro se subscreve ou não a visão da chanceler alemã.

 

*Artigo publicado originalmente na edição impressa do jornal Correio Braziliense (26/06/2017)