|
|
What the Greens did in power
Seven years in coalition with the Social
Democratic Party (SPD) have revealed the German Greens as just another
establishment party. KIM OPGENOORTH, Sozialistische Alternative (CWI
Germany), traces ‘the bourgeoisification of the sunflower’ (the Greens
emblem).
HE ENTERED WITH tumultuous noise, but left quietly
with the look of the elder statesman on his face. The retirement of
Joschka Fischer, foreign minister in the ‘Red-Green’ government, from
the German Bundestag (lower chamber of parliament) was perfectly staged.
In the unlikely case of the Greens entering the new
coalition government, he would have offered his services as foreign
minister once more. But to go back into opposition was too much for the
well-travelled politician known throughout the world. He deems himself
called to higher things, casting his eye on positions in the European
Union (EU) or UN. Where the Bundestag is concerned, Fischer has achieved
his goal of proving to German big business that the Greens are capable
of doing policy in their interest. He enthusiastically sums up seven
years of Red-Green coalition government: "During this period, Germany
has become a different country. More open, for example, because of new
citizenship and migration laws. More ecological. Although big business
complained about these reforms, they worked in their favour. More
liberated. We Germans are a lot clearer now about who we are. For
example, where foreign policy is concerned, we are rooted in Europe and
the west, we are a confident nation. Of all this, we Red-Greens can be
extremely proud".
He is right. Germany has become a different country.
Restraint in foreign policy is a thing of the past. Imperialist demands
are being formulated with new confidence. Germany participated in two
wars, soldiers are positioned all over the world. The SPD defence
minister declared, without being contradicted, that German interests are
being defended in the Hindu Kush. Fischer has been congratulated by the
bourgeois media. Only with him was it possible to de-pacify Germany.
Only he could break this taboo which existed since the end of the second
world war by asking: "What is the lesson of Auschwitz? Perhaps that
sometimes soldiers have to be used in time?" Without offering any
criticism, the Greens support bourgeois EU policy. Claudia Roth, the
Greens’ national chair, sees the double-no vote in France and the
Netherlands against the EU constitution as a "bitter disappointment":
"There is no alternative to a more democratic and transparent Europe
capable of taking action. All European politicians to whom this project
is close to their hearts now have to advertise the EU constitution even
stronger… I am completely convinced that this constitution is a victory
for the future unification of Europe".
Apparently, the country has become more open. The
anti-terror laws of SPD interior minister, Otto Schilly, were supported
by the Greens, so was the increase in deportations. The right to double
citizenship has been reduced after a baiting campaign by the Christian
Democratic Union (CDU). Schilly sees his immigration policy as a
continuation of previous governments, whose policies "he has no
criticism of". The new immigration law divides foreigners into
categories according to their usefulness for big business. Racist views
are widespread among Green party members. The new chair of the Greens’
parliamentary group admitted: "We have to become more honest about the
question of what we mean by a multicultural democracy. Many Greens send
their children to school in other areas than where they live in order to
avoid the large percentage of foreigners in their own living areas".
There are more organic food stores and wind farms in
Germany. Ecology has become profitable. Wind and solar energy are boom
sectors, receiving strong state support and good profits. The bio label
has become a marketing advantage. This primarily means that the word
‘bio’ has to be on the package – not necessarily inside.
The Red-Green government liked to present itself as
a European champion of the environment, but the results are rather
pathetic. A new study by the World-Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) proves
that German coal power plants are extremely damaging for the
environment. Nine of the 30 most harmful European coal plants can be
found in Germany, five in the top ten. One is in second place, just
behind Greece.
The demand to end nuclear energy use in one or two
years has turned into 20-30 years. This is, in effect, a lifetime
guarantee for what are, in parts, already outdated and unproductive
power plants. Nuclear energy still provides 30% of German energy. The
power of the main energy companies has not been questioned. Four major
companies have divided up the market among themselves and, because of
their monopoly, prevent the lowering of electricity prices. The Green
election slogan, ‘get away from using oil’, can be supported by industry
because it promises more energy independence.
Social attacks
CONCERNING THE SOCIAL situation, Germany really has
become a different country. A massive transformation has taken place.
The system of social partnership has ended. The class war from above has
begun. With the help of the trade unions, the Red-Green government
turned big business interests into reality. In 1998, the highest tax
rate was 53%, fell to 45%, and is now 42% – a millionaire saves €100,000
per year. At the same time, the last pennies are robbed from the
unemployed. At an amazing pace, workers are losing money, holidays,
special rights in the workplaces, and democratic rights. Low-paid jobs
and contracts not covered by union agreements muscle out those bound by
national pay deals. The welfare state is being undermined, and
preparations for the further destruction of pensions, health and
education have been made. Schools are not being renovated, poverty can
be seen in the streets.
The Greens have not just looked on but played a
leading role in this. They saw themselves as the motor of reform and the
SPD as a party too prepared to give in to working-class pressure. The
Hartz IV reforms, which led to mass protests and the foundation of the
new left party are, "apart from a few corrections", still defended by
Roth. Her criticism is of "strong promotional problems": using "killer
wordings like Hartz IV and €1 Jobs" did not promote trust. The Greens
were against Gerhard Schröder’s call for new elections. They would have
preferred hard government measures to carry on. Fischer commented about
the lost elections: "We have begun the difficult renewal of society
which the Kohl government was too sleepy to do during the 1990s…"
Not much is left of the radical democratic demands
made by this once rebellious party, apart from the demand for more
plebiscites on political issues. Internally, the ‘democrats from below’
have transformed themselves into a party where those coming to the top
are those who are favoured by the secret general secretary. There are
still women’s quotas. When the going gets tough, however, the one-man
show starts. Difficult governmental decisions were made by Fischer and
Schröder alone. During the elections, the Greens’ posters advertised:
‘Yes! To Joschka’, a ‘Joschka Tour’ for the ‘Joschka Vote’. There is no
other party in which the national committee ignores decisions made by
the membership so openly. The decision made by delegates at the last
congress to oppose the delivery of 20 Fuchs tanks and 80 trucks to the
Iraqi interim government did not even survive two days. Apparently, the
parliamentary Greens did not have to stick to this decision as this was
not a classic arms export but "equipment support". "Iraqi police
officers and soldiers serving the interim government are regularly being
attacked, intimidated, shot at and bombed. All things considered, can we
really deny the request of their government to send them secure
vehicles?" Roth argued.
Using skilful rhetoric, leading Green politicians
shape reality as they need it. The Afghanistan war was not a war but a
liberation struggle against the oppression of women. Privatisation means
self-determination and freedom. Hartz IV is ‘just’ because other
measures, like raising pension contributions for the older generations,
would be unjust. Fischer makes the point in his book, For a New Social
Contract, that there is a need to adapt to the pressures of
globalisation and that this puts into question some core values of the
democratic left. This does not lead him to the open declaration of
right-wing policies. Left is redefined as "modern left". The larger the
gap between self-perception and reality, the more bombastic the
declarations: "A modern left party means to see society as it is. It is
not the old work and class society. Left core values like social justice
and equality of opportunity still have to be at the centre of our
policies. But defined in a new way… equality of access, equality of the
generations".
The Greens are worse than they appear. The history
of their foundation makes them look more leftwing then they have been
for a long time. The voters have not yet realised the whole dimension of
their shift to the right. Enthusiasm for this party has long gone,
though. The TAZ, a daily newspaper close to the Greens, asked at the
time of the 25th anniversary of their foundation: Why do people still
vote Green? Although the typical green voter would vote for them out of
conviction, s/he could not explain why. The TAZ found a new category,
the "cultural voter". The Green voter votes for what culturally or
emotionally feels most comfortable. The last general election saw one
last push for the Greens. Instead of the expected 6% they achieved just
over 8%. But this was an election of the two camps against each other:
Red-Green against conservative-liberal. A political scientist explains
the less than expected fall in votes for the Greens with the fact that
they "made an oppositional election campaign against their own
policies".
Eco-socialists
SUNFLOWERS, SELF-MADE knitted pullovers and
politicians on bikes, that is all gone now. The chair of the
parliamentary group of the Left Party, Gregor Gysi, found the correct
wording to describe this: "The Green flower has dried up". At the time
of their foundation they had many left demands and a lot of members who
saw themselves as socialists. But a Marxist analysis of society, a clear
class point of view and a coherent socialist programme were missing.
Individual demands, without being embedded into a socialist programme,
are like a tiny flag in the wind. They are nothing but nice ideas and
will, if confronted with reality, sometimes turn into their direct
opposite.
The production of economic goods could and should be
ecologically harmonious. It should not be dangerous, neither at the
workplace nor for the consumer. The needs of the population have to be
paramount. Healthy food must not be a luxury. Fresh air, clean water and
a responsible attitude towards natural needs are basic rights of
humanity. They are being trampled upon all over the world by capitalism.
Those who want to save the environment have to be prepared to declare
war on the profit interests of big business. Especially where the
environment is concerned it becomes clear that only a planned economy,
democratically organised and based upon the needs of the population,
would be capable of stopping the destruction of the environment and
start regeneration measures. Individual lifestyle changes and private
boycott actions combat a bad consciousness but not the systematic
destruction of nature. Instead of discussing how to get individuals to
reduce waste, the production of unnecessary packaging should be stopped.
Instead of appealing to the individual to save energy, energy-saving
vehicles should be produced. There is a need for a well-planned and
attractive public transport system. Democracy and control from the
working population is necessary for this, as the Stalinist regimes in
the east showed – where the environment was destroyed without a second
thought.
Many Greens were sceptical about a socialist
alternative. Even the ‘socialist wing’ within the Greens saw Marxism’s
positive views on progress, growth and technology as a threat to the
environment. The productive forces in themselves, not how they were
used, were seen as destructive: "The main point of attack of
eco-socialist revisionism was the naivety of Marxism to believe in an
objective, neutral and emancipatory character of science, technology and
production". This was written by the radical ‘eco-socialists’, Trampert
and Ebermann, in the 1980s. According to them, a new society would have
to be based on sacrifice and reduction of living standards. Small
businesses should replace large-scale industry. Cycling and walking
would replace cars and planes. Instead of revolutionising technology and
using it in an ecological fashion, humanity should give up technology.
These views, which condemned industrialisation and idealised the middle
ages, could not provide a realistic perspective or solutions for
existing problems.
No class perspective
THESE VIEWS RESULTED in a widening of the gulf
towards the working population. The worker who drove to work was
classified as stupid and fixated on consumerism. The working class was
seen as an enemy instead of an ally. The membership of the early Greens
consisted of a mixed bag of nature and environmental organisations,
civic initiatives, and movements for peace, human rights, women and the
third world. Left idealists sat next to right-wing reactionaries. They
were only united in their concern about the environment. They saw this
question as unrelated to class conflict, more as a question of survival
for the human species which was above class struggle. The decline of the
Greens is proof that environmental questions are class questions. The
capitalist system, in which only profit maximisation and private
accumulation count, considers laws against the use of poisonous
chemicals or the poisoning of rivers as a massive hindrance.
Environmental laws and health and safety regulations have only been
achieved because of mass pressure from the workers’ movement and the
population. No environmental problem can be solved without adopting a
class perspective. Working-class control of production is necessary. The
rescue of natural resources cannot be left to free-market forces.
Appeals to reason of the guilty parties have achieved nothing.
The Voran newspaper (predecessor of Solidaritaet,
paper of Sozialistische Alternative) wrote in 1978: "It will be
impossible for the justified protest movement of the ‘Greens’, which is
predominantly supported by activists from the middle classes and the
petty bourgeoisie, to stand between the two big classes in society. It
will have to decide: with the workers’ movement or with big business".
Events have shown this analysis to be correct. The party transformed
itself into a party sucking up to big business.
The more the Greens participated in government, the
more bourgeois policies they forced their members to accept, the more
their membership started to become bourgeois. Ralf Flücks, chief of the
Böll-Foundation close to the Greens, describes the social composition of
the Greens: "The leftwing has eroded. The Greens have won, however,
self-employed people and people working in the information sector". They
would not necessarily be better paid, but well qualified. "The Greens
represent the innovative aspects of society…" Statistics do show,
however, that the Green voter of today is also better paid. In 1982, the
largest percentage of votes from households with the lowest income went
to the Greens. During the 1990s, the income of Green voters overtook
that of CDU and SPD voters by a long shot. Statistics from 2002 show
that the average Green voter takes home €1,750-2,000 a month. Every
fourth Green has access to at least €3,000 monthly take-home pay. Their
income is higher than voters of the right-wing Free Democratic Party (FDP),
which likes to be called the ‘party of high earners’.
Prospects for a conservative-green alliance
ACCORDINGLY TAZ compares the Greens with the FDP:
"The Greens have more common ground with traditional Liberals and
Christian Democrats then with anything red. They would finally arrive in
the bourgeois spheres they habitually represent already".
The Greens opposed short-lived speculation about a
black, yellow and green ‘Jamaica coalition’ (the party colours of the
CDU, FDP and Greens) made after the elections. This was, claimed Roth,
"not explainable to the party and voters". She probably meant, not yet
explainable. A bit of time and rhetoric is still needed. But
conservative-green is not a new thing. On a local level, such coalitions
have worked brilliantly: in Cologne, they pushed through the biggest
cuts in post-war history! There were cuts in the cultural and social
sectors as well as women’s and migrants’ services. Leading Green
politicians recommend conservative-green coalitions on a regional level
as the next step. The upcoming regional parliamentary elections in Baden
Würtenberg would be an opportunity for this.
Like many others, Flücks is happy to be able to
escape the tight limits of red-green: "Red-Green was important to show
we are capable of participating in government. Programmatically, it was
not that good for the Greens… We stand for a different way of reaching
social justice than the SPD does. Green is a combination of
self-determination, self-responsibility and solidarity. Social
participation is being decided when it comes to access to public goods
like education and culture. Social Democrats are more fixated on social
transfer services".
Fischer recommends "the opening up to both sides
without becoming ‘a lost child’ in the centre. This is important for the
programmatic renewal of the party. We have to be able to reach voters
from the classical left as well as those from a bourgeois background".
The declaration of the Bavarian CSU’s top politician, Edmund Stoiber,
that "one would have to get used to the idea of governing with a Jürgen
Trittin" (a leading Green minister in the outgoing government), is seen
as a "cultural step forward" by Fischer.
The foundation of the Left Party robs the Greens of
those voters who have perceived them so far as being the smallest evil.
During this year’s general election they lost almost a quarter of a
million votes to the Left Party. The Greens have to position themselves
in a new political landscape. In accordance with their membership
composition, the Greens will move to the right.
Green issues are rooted widely within society.
Ecological demands are present in all party programmes. This is because
of the movement that mobilised large parts of the population during the
1970s and 1980s. The party that, coming out of these mass movements,
rose to power, has achieved the opposite of its stated aims. Instead of
enforcing green demands, it managed to discourage and de-politicise the
public.
The sad sell-out of the Greens and their ideals is a
warning for the building of a new mass workers’ party. The fewer
principled attacks against the foundations of capitalism there are in a
programme, the less chance there is to achieve even the smallest
reforms. Without mass popular mobilisation a left party has no chance in
a bourgeois parliament. Within the new Left Party, some leaders already
want to be in government. The fate of the Greens shows: the
participation of a left party in a bourgeois government does not lead to
a shift to the left in government policies but to the bourgeoisification
of the party.
Translated by Christian Bunke
|