fear of the future is a great phrase, I had never heard it until today but that is the feeling I got from talking to people here. Things are getting a bit worse, taxes are up, prices are up, folks are losing their jobs, and life is not quite as comfortable as it used to be.

I have heard one reason for voting CDU is that the SPD has failed to deliver and that looking back, things were not all that bad with Kohl as Bundeskanzler.

Bernhard has a very good point about the electoral process in Germany, it is simple and it works. That in itself is a major accomplishment.

Posted by: dan of steele | Sep 18 2005 12:59 utc | 1

New Zealand has a similar system of mixed member proportional representation (MMP) although it isn't a federal system, far to small for that so doesn't have a second house of assembly. In fact it was that which led to the demand for proportional representation because when there is only one house of assembly, a first past the post system gives incredible power to a government which may only have minority support.

Since the introduction of proportional representation where each voter has two votes one for selecting a representative for his/her elecectorate and another for selecting the party that the voter favors for government, the Parliament has become much more representative of the people.

Prior to MMP there was a preponderance of white males in politics and whilst there are still more of them than you can shake a stick at there are also a lot more women (around 30%) Maori, Pacific Islander, Asian and representatives from social minorities as well as ethnic.

A transexual MP was elected in the first term of MMP parliament and she has held her seat since then. Interestingly enough she won her seat in an electorate but prior to MMP I doubt her party would have considered selecting her.

We had our national polls yesterday and the conservative (National Party) looked like winning for the first time in a long time.

We have a relatively booming economy with very low unemployment so the Tories campaigned on two issues tax cuts and the old one law for all BS which means that inequality between races in education, employment and health is bad but shouldn't be addressed with programs targetting people on their ethnicity. Yeah right.

Anyway although it was a close run thing it appears that the alleged Social Democrat Party (Labour) will be returned to power in coalition with the Greens.

I'm always complaining about the leftish parties being too gutless here but they won't get involved in wars and they try to be socially aware eg Civil Union Bill and decriminalise prostitution were passed in their last term.

They are fiscally very conservative which is how they nearly got ambushed by the right. They had started to accumulate huge budget surpluses because the booming economy had vastly increased consumption tax returns at the same time as wage increases had caused 'bracket creep' on income tax.

There werre many many things that the money could have been spent on in health and education but they were too scared about being seen as spendthrift so they sat on it.

The Tories decided to offer it all back to voters in tax cuts for the middle to wealthy.

Fortunately its been too soon since the last time in the early nineties that they last slashed services so enough people remembered. Now that the leftish parties have opened the purse strings we will have to make sure they stay open and issues of indigenous life expectancy and imprisonment are addressed properly.

The voting system here is manual also with most people having a polling booth within walking distance and a similar card system to Germany's.

It works better than elections I have witnessed in many other 'democracies' but participation is dropping.

The reason is the same as everywhere people are tired of 'spin' and duplicitous behaviour by politicians of all stripes.

Voter apathy is the single biggest issue facing democracies at the moment and until people accept that the skill required to win a popularity contest is very different from the skills required to represent voters and keep them informed of issues, apathy will get worse.

It is coming though. I don't mean just NZ by that but the feeling that citizens simply won't tolerate the BS associated with spin and use of devices such as 'hot button' issues is becoming palpable around the world.

Furthermore although voters are passionate about democracy when they first get the opportunity to vote fairly; disenchantment sets in almost immediately.

It used to take a generation or two for voters to get cynical now it doesn't even take one parliamentary term eg The Ukraine.

Somehow we must find a way through this because politicians are far too overwhelmed by ambition and hubris to see that this issue is very close to many citizens tolerance limit.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 18 2005 13:32 utc | 2

First results are in:

Schröder wins and looses. The right of center CDU gets a much smaller than expected 35-37%. Together with their promised partner FDP neolibs (10%) the do NOT get a majority.

BUT the CDU does have the highest percentage of all parties which will allow them to start the negotiating for a coalition government and press for Merkel as the chancellor.

Things are quite open now - there are several coalitions possible.

- "Grand coalition" CDU + SPD
- "Traffic light coalition" Red (SPD) Yello (FDP) Green (Green)
- "Red, Red, Green" - SPD, Green, LeftParty (ex eastern communists)

Quite interesting negotiations are coming up now.

Posted by: b | Sep 18 2005 16:14 utc | 3

But these are exit poll numbers, right? Couldn't the numbers still shift a little?

Posted by: Fran | Sep 18 2005 16:26 utc | 4

Fran - no - these numbers are quite solid - at lleast three differnet sources.

The only change could come if Dresden does vote much, much differently than everybody else. Possible, but only 218k voters - not enough to really change things.

What I take from this at least - there is a very stable majority left of the center. Given the curcumstances this is a huge loss for the right.

Posted by: b | Sep 18 2005 16:52 utc | 5

So, somehow Merkel will be in a similar situation as Schröder has been. She will not be able to navigate freely as she would want too?!

Posted by: Fran | Sep 18 2005 16:58 utc | 6

Right now I don´t even think Merkel will become chancellor.

She either needs the SPD to join a grand coalition, or she needs the Green to join her together with the FDP. The second choice would be the death of the Green party, their base is on the left - they will not do it.

That leaves Schröder in the driving seat.

He can tell the FDP: "Either you join us, SPD, and the Greens for a 'traffic light' coalition, or we will do a "grand coalition" together with Merkel and you will have nothing to say for the next four years".

So what will the FDP choose? They have been in a coalition with the SPD for quite some years until some 15 years ago. I am sure they could live with that if they get cabinet posts for justice, interior and maybe finance or economy.

It wouldn´t even been too bad for politics. They are more liberal on "law and order" than some SPD folks and do have some good ideas on the economy.

The more I think about this, the more I like it.

Posted by: b | Sep 18 2005 17:23 utc | 7

So these are interesting times. However I heard the argument that the Greens wouldn't be to happy to have the FDP in a coalition - what is your opinion to that?

Posted by: Fran | Sep 18 2005 17:36 utc | 8

Well - do you want to be happy in the opposition with nothing to say, or not so happy ruling the country and with Joshka F. as the Sec. State?

(The sec state job will be the one most fighted for - Joshka may not get it again - but anyhow - the ruling argument holds).

Schroeder just said on TV "a stable government under my lead" - that´s it. Also one of the powerful CDU state governours just started to fire a bit against Merkel as having "lost" the election for her party. Maybe she is toast now.

Posted by: b | Sep 18 2005 17:45 utc | 9

A thought for the Americans here. This is a big loss for Bush. He did bet on Merkel and a right turn in Germany, as did Blair.

I expect a much softer note on Iran from Germany now. Internationally it is also a big win for Turkey (Merkel campaigned against Turkey membership in the EU). It is also positive for the European project as an alternative against the US free enterprise model.

Not the very best possible outcome but much better than expected by polls. Just four weeks ago nobody would have betted a dime on Schröder.

Posted by: b | Sep 18 2005 17:54 utc | 10

@Debs Voter apathy is the single biggest issue facing democracies at the moment

Germany had 79+% participation with nothing life threatening at stake - it's less in local elections but there is also less at stake. Voter apathy is a problem, but it was not today in Germany (Afghanistan had only some 50% today but then they do have other problems). I wonder why - maybe democracy is alive somewhere.

Posted by: b | Sep 18 2005 18:00 utc | 11

Thanks, b, for keeping us informed.

Voter apathy is so much of a canard, around these parts anyway. People turned out in Germany 'cuz there was a tiny chance of having ones interests represented. Americans had one representative in senate - Paul Wellstone. The Criminal Conspiracy that seized our govt. in '00 murdered him & now there is no one - though Vt. Bernie Sanders may be allowed to occupy the Paul Wellstone Memorial Senate Seat. Otherwise there is No one to vote for. Districts are so gerrymandered now for congress that they're almost guaranteed set asides for one party or the other. It's a joke, a crime. If the Jackass Party allows supreme court to be stacked w/anti-choice dictatorship & torture loving sickos, that's the end of them...The situation here is so bad now that they will not allow us to have on the ballot the candidate that would get everyone to the polls to vote - "None of the Above"...

Posted by: jj | Sep 18 2005 18:51 utc | 12

GERMANY'S ELECTIONS ON SUNDAY: WHAT'S AT STAKE? A DIRELAND Exclusive from Germany

The above report from Germany on the coming elections on Sunday [todays]-- written exclusively for DIRELAND -- is by Stefan Reinecke, a senior editor of Die Tageszeitung, the left-wing German daily known familiarly to everyone as TAZ. This 25-year-old non-commercial, Berlin-based daily --which also has editions in Bremen and Hanover -- is sustained by contributions from a 6000-plus member readers' association, and has a national circulation of around 100,000. TAZ was born out of the ecologist, feminist, and pacifist movements of the '70s, but is respected for its seriousness -- TAZ is also publisher of the German edition of Le Monde Diplomatique. Stefan Reinecke's article was translated from the German by our old friend and frequent DIRELAND contributor, Norman Birnbaum.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 18 2005 20:12 utc | 13

Thanks Uncle for that link - I had not read that piece even though I am a quite early member of that 6000-plus club - a good analysis.

Posted by: b | Sep 18 2005 20:33 utc | 14

Greek tv reported that the SPD could take more seats in the parliament that the CDU. But even if Merkel takes more seats, I think she is finished politically. Unbelievable! Schroeder has more (political) lives than a cat.

Posted by: Greco | Sep 18 2005 21:37 utc | 15

@b

The turnout in NZ on Saturday was also around 80% which was better than the previous election but that was a reflection of how close the latest election was rather than bucking a trend.

The SPD may make it yet in Germany. A couple of hours into counting in NZ and the conservatives had a 10% lead. They maintained that for an hour or two while I consulted atlases and history books looking for somewhere to live where I don't feel under siege (LOL). Somehow the Labour Party The Greens and The Maori Party fought back. By the end of the night the Labour Party had a 1% lead over the Conservatives and although they have a slightly reduced number of seats they should be able to cobble together some sort of coalition.

NZ always has a big chunk of special votes chiefly from young New Zealanders living overseas. These have yet to be counted but traditionally they favour the Greens so things may get even better.

I'm just content that the white supremacists didn't get in.

The major parties have studiously avoided trying to divide the community on racial grounds for the last couple of decades, but this year the Tories scraped the bottom of the barrel and cranked up the hate. They ran on a ticket of disenfranchising Maori people. The mechanics are complex but since 1840 when the Maoris fought the English to a standstill and the Treaty of Waitangi was signed Maori have always had a number of 'guaranteed' seats in Parliament. This was especially critical in the old first past the post system as it would have been conceivable to have had absolutely no indiginous representation.

The Maori seats never go to Tory parties. That combined with the stupidity of letting white South Africans migrate here after the end of apartheid meant that the desperate and destructive Tories thought there may be a vote in playing the race card by promising to abolish the Maori seats. It didn't give them the boost in the polls they wanted so they threw tax cuts into the mix as well. Although they stopped talking about the Maori issue during the campaign (it was getting them no 'traction') they didn't take it off the table.

Now the Tories are in the situation of trying to undermine a Labour coalition and form their own something they can't do without the support of the Maori Party, who are having a great deal of fun toying with them as the pricks come cap in hand pretending it was all 'just politics'. The tories are giving a graphic demonstration to the electorate of how naked ambition can overcome any 'principles'.

That was the most heartening thing about this election. One of the smaller right wing parties had always got a few votes cranking up old white people's xenophobia. In the past they had been anti Asian but now that there are a significant number of Asian voters in NZ they dropped that in the hope they may lure some into their tent.

They went after Muslims instead. Did the old all muslims are terrorists number and everytime they made a press release on that they would drop a couple more percentage points.

It's weird cause the whitefellas here are no less racist than they are anywhere else. There are some people living up the right of way a bit who come from the Phillipines and my other neighbors always refer to them as "the Asians up the road" I'm sure that our family is the only one around who knows exactly where it is they come from and certainly none of my other neighbours appear to know this families names.

The thing is even though they are just as f****d up as anywhere else, even the conservatives are quite proud of NZ's reputation for tolerance. So they won't overtly support any white supremacist cause lest it impact upon that reputation and reduce returns from tourism.

The ones that really get me are the Boers who came here from South Africa. They already made their country of birth unlivable for themselves with their ignorance and stupidity and now they want to do the same here!

Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 18 2005 21:52 utc | 16

For me the most interesting thing about coverage of the German election is how it reflects the social, political and economic memes of our elites. Hence, Schroder is invariably portrayed as as a cryto reactionary whose dogmatism makes him unable to acknoweldge or accept the realities of globalization, while Merkel is cast as the feisty outsider (a woman, physicist and easterner, natch) ready to shake up the hidebound establishment.

The "realities of globalization", as understood by these elites, is of course that other Western countries must either become a lot more like the United States or succumb to terminal stagnation and decline. Specifically, they must accept an ever widening gap between rich and poor and the principle that the interests of capital and the affluent trump those of labor and the non affluent. The reward which the masses can expect for such difference to their socio-economic betters is the promise of lower unemployment, higher productivity and utlimately a "higher standard of living".

It is not self evident to me that the average American really enjoys a higher standard of living than the average Western European however -in fact if anything I would say the opposite is true. America does looks better when compared on the basis of crude statistical measures like average per capita GDP, but the point is exactly that no one is "average" -these measures are politically useful because they easily disguise large income gaps in favor of a mythical norm that is very far from reality as experienced by both rich and poor. Conversely, measures that cannot be easily reconciled with the elite interpretation of reality, things like infant mortality, poverty, hours worked or even the risk of bankrupcy as a result of catastrophic illness, are carefully ignored by virtue of the physical and psychological barriers which America's elite have errected to shield themselves from the seedy underside of the "American dynamism" of which they are the principle beneficiaries. It is a testement to the efficacy of those barriers that it took a disaster of the magnitude of New Orleans for large sections of the elite to acknowledge, however transiently, ugly and enduring truisms about race and class in America.

The election in Germany could have been an opportunity to discuss the policy options and priorities with which all Western countries must come to terms but instead, in the hands of mainstream media that is intellectually (and also generally financially) captive to elite interests, it simply became another variation of the tried and true theme of Tired Socialism vs. Trimphant Capitalism.

Posted by: Lexington | Sep 19 2005 0:32 utc | 17

The election in Germany could have been an opportunity to discuss the policy options and priorities with which all Western countries must come to terms but instead, in the hands of mainstream media that is intellectually (and also generally financially) captive to elite interests, it simply became another variation of the tried and true theme of Tired Socialism vs. Trimphant Capitalism.

Yes, and that's the way it will stay until Triumphant Capitalism either falls down and goes boom -- which could happen once the current debt/dollar bubble bursts -- or until the income/wealth inequities created by neoliberal globalization overwhelm the growth benefits, and the decline in middle class living standards becomes too rapid to be rationalized or ignored.

The US is already on the leading edge of that last transformation. Germany, still a semi-social democratic economy, is on the trailing edge. If neoliberalism fails, it will fail first here.

A question for Bernhard (or anyone else up to speed on German politics): Could the SDP and the Greens remain in power as a minority government, by getting the Party of the Left to vote for another Schroeder government, without actually entering the coalition?

Posted by: Billmon | Sep 19 2005 1:15 utc | 18

It is not true that xUS has higher standard of living than Western Europe. 80% of Americans have a lower standard of living - and even that figure seems low to me.

American Dynamism....methinks they mean American Dynasticism.

Posted by: jj | Sep 19 2005 1:21 utc | 19

@Debs,

I'm reading your assessment of the New Zealand elections with interest, being a NZ resident and citizen now for 6 years after living in the US, UK, Australia and briefly in Hong Kong.

I think the electoral system here is extremely good, and in general the political parties simply honestly differ on what they believe is the best thing for the country (and, of course, they all want a job :-). I haven't got a position on tax cuts - my concern is that whatever level of services the electorate decides the government should administer and deliver, that the government do so efficiently and fairly. My own feeling is that the Labour government has become a bit sloppy, corrupt and arrogant - paternalistic in fact - after too long in office; but in my judgment the civil service here does an exceptional job in keeping politicians under advice and scrutiny and in general our taxes aren't squandered.

As an immigrant, however, it has been difficult for me to understand why someone's ethnicity should be an explicit factor in law, and almost everything else, in NZ. This is the only country I've ever lived in where my genetic code explicitly determines my position relative to the state. Granted, this is implicit in many other countries but here it is enshrined in every statute, every government office, every procedural matter. The idea of removing all reference to racial categories throughout the law appeals to me. I'm happy to support education, health and employment programmes based on all sorts of criteria - so long as they relate directly to education, health and employment. Race is not one of those criteria. It is neither a cause nor an effect.

My day-to-day living experience is largely confined to the South Island, whose racial entitlements are mainly controlled by a single "tribe" which denies the status and even existence of the remaining members of tribes that they displaced using European rifles shortly before statehood. It is my observation from direct experience that that share of tax revenue which is meant to be available to help with education, health and employment in their tribe is instead appropriated by a "traditional" system of patronage by the very wealthy and powerful leaders of this tribe and their hangers-on. Just as in the USA support for small family farms ends up in the hands of the large corporate agribusinesses who dominate the lobbying.

This system of patronage is greatly resented by the ordinary members that I know. Instead of being eligible like anyone else for help when they need it on the basis of that need, because of their race they must kiss the hand of those that control the money and jobs or go without. Clearly it is also in these leaders' interest to perpetuate those very discrepancies in education, health and employment to keep the money coming. It is to that wasteful system of patronage and the perverse incentives that I have come to attribute the high correlations between race and education, health and employment. I believe these services would be better delivered by a professional civil service based on meritocracy rather than tribal patronage.

While you see a covert racism in wanting to explicitly remove race from the law I simply see a healthier, fairer polity. I don't see an ulterior motive. I don't believe that the civil service I have experienced would follow a racist agenda in delivering services. I think that they would in fact address all of these needs based on need and in a relatively short time you wouldn't have any racial discrepancies to point to to justify the patronage.

LOL

Posted by: PeeDee | Sep 19 2005 2:29 utc | 20

Interesting news article about the resent Japanese elections.

Is this political evolution or intelligent design? (yes I'm being
ironic) In Japan the voters don't seem to believe what they've done.

If that is they really did it.

Or has the CheneyCo just gotten cockier than usual after the blatant
shenanigans they got away with the last two times in America?

QUOTE:

After giving the prime minister a huge mandate in the recent election,
voters are feeling a little queasy about what he might actually do.

By Bruce Wallace, Times Staff Writer

TOKYO — It has been a strange post election week in Japan.

When they went to the polls Sunday in greater numbers than at any time
since the Cold War, voters handed Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi one
of the most decisive victories in Japan's political history.

Then they went back to work Monday morning wondering what they'd done,
like the sedate businessman who wakes up after drinking too much sake,
trying to recall what songs he sang at karaoke the night before.

End Quote

For full story see:
http://tinyurl.com/97e2m ">
Young Conservative to Head Democratic Party

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 19 2005 3:34 utc | 21

@ PeeDee
"This is the only country I've ever lived in where my genetic code explicitly determines my position relative to the state.

Well it certainly isn't the only country around the Pacific like this. Apart from the many pacific Island nations such as Fiji where only indiginous people can freely own land you may be aware of asian nations such as Indonesia or Malaysia where Bumi Putra (people of the land) have completely different rights in law in terms of the way the courts deal with them and whether they can own land.

The protections for Maori enshrined in the Treaty of Waitangi are far less stringent than any of those laws.

The treaty was signed by Maori at the behest of the British and apart from the fact there were numerous attempts to decieve maori about the true meaning of the treaty (if you have been here six years have you sat down with the original copy of the treaty in English and compared it to the Maori language version translated back into English? They are quite different documents but the only people who were aware of this at the time the treaty was signed were the English who drafted both versions).

This was the document that NZ was founded on and over the more than 150 years since it's signing it has been repeatedly broken and ignored by guess who? Pakeha (non Maori settlers of course).

My forebears migrated to central Otago from the northern hemisphere in 1860 and they were well aware of the Treaty of Waitangi. It was in fact one of the reasons they came here. The country was relatively peaceful and had been founded on a mutually binding agreement between Maori and Pakeha. Since that time the information about NZ's origin being founded upon this treaty has been available to all who have settled here. Just as US citizens don't have a great deal of time for migrants who arrive in their nation and want to overturn the US constitution I don't always have a lot of time for people who come to NZ and then want to undermine the foundations of our country.

However I do accept that you are living in the south island where not only are non white people scarcer than rockinghorse shit all of the rationalisations that Pakeha have used to justify their blatant theft are spread throughout the community and of course there aren't that many Maori to argue the toss.

Even during my lifetime the theft of what land the Maori had left was an accepted nay an encouraged practise. According to the treaty all property transactions that involve Maori land have to go through a tribunal called the Maori land court to ensure that no one is getting ripped off. Initially when Pakeha brought land from maori there was a considerable amount of confusion about what that meant because Maori didn't have a concept of individual property ownership and didn't realise that they weren't just letting this person who had given them some gold or whatever to use this land. They were ceding control of it forever.

Once Maori did understand that they became much less prepared to sell. The Pakeha government decided to tilt the playing field a bit to ensure that their colonialism continued unabated. The Maori land court stopped being resourced. It wasn't until the 1980's that it had more than one registrar and one clerk and they played catch up footy checking over ancient transactions where the parties had died decades before.

The first thing government did was 'confiscate' land from Maori for some crime that Maori didn't even know existed let alone know they had committed. This led to a number of massacres and caused divisions between new pakeha settlers who wanted their bit of land and the older settlers who resented having to pay tax to defend themselves against counter attacks caused by cheats.

It took a while but after Prime Minister Vogel pulled off the ultimate scam in the 1880's by seizing land in the public interest to build a railroad the land grabbers became much more sophisticated. Rates or property tax became the method of choice for driving Maori off their land.

Many Maori lived completely outside the cash economy. Not only did they have no interest in using currency they had no means of getting any even if they did.

Although the dole and other social welfare payments had been available to Pakehas since the late 1920's Maori had no such entitlement and we Pakeha didn't even think about it. We were told that there were no Maori left. All 'full blood' Maori had died out and all that was left were half-castes who were basically Pakehas just like the rest of us.

There was a considerable difference however for one thing all Pakeha families I knew of that had been in the country more than one generation were very comfortable. Most children would inherit sufficient when they turned 21 to buy a house or set up business or piss it up against the wall. That was the exception for the Maori kids who were much less likely to live through childhood, their life expectancy was much lower and turning 21 the age of majority entitled them to go to 'proper' prison.

One of the maori MP's for Labour was thrown in prison for 6 weeks as a young man for allegedly stealing a pillow. What in actual fact happened was that he had moved to the city to find work and was staying in a boarding house that was prepared to allow Maori residents for a price. The price was very high mind you and Dover had precious little left over after he paid his rent. A friend offered him a job on a fishing boat at good money and where his board and keep were included in the wages. He did the right thing and gave his landlady notice but she was angry about losing her goose that laid golden eggs so after he moved out she told the police he had stolen a pillow. The police went to the boat and although they didn't find any pillow both they and the courts believed the landlady ahead of Dover and he copped 6 weeks in Mt Eden prison. One of those classic bleak victorian stone jails. Welcome to Pakehaland.

But it didn't end there in 1999 when he was made minister of Maori affairs some Pakeha crim decided that he would get a bit of notoriety by boasting he had done a lag with a minister of the crown. Word got round and the dreadful two bob each way Helen Clark decided to cover her ass by sacking him from cabinet. There was an enquiry which exonerated him but by that time she had given the gig to another who wasn't going to give it up without a fight. bad luck Dover!

These stories are legion and mostly true. As a youngfella I used to take all sorts of jobs to pay for my studies and until I did that I had no conception at all of the 'underclass'. We had some Maori at our school but we also had agressive academic streaming so that Maori were always in the 'bottom class'. We rarely knew any well enough to understand how different from ours their lives were.

I remember meeting this young Maori fellow about my age when I was working in a leathergoods factory one vacation. He had been brought up out in a rural community by his maternal aunt. Unfortunately the land they were living on which had been occupied by their whanau since long before white fellas turned up, was fertile and in the heart of country that farmers were making good money off by turning into dairy farms.

The Pakeha neighbor was always pressuring his aunt to sell but she wouldn't so in the end this neighbor got himself elected to the county council. The first thing he did was make sure the council hit the old Maori lady for rates (property taxes) going back decades. She had no money and wasn't entitled to any social welfare because she lived in an area of low employment prospect. (code for lets not pay Maoris anything by the 'fair' public service) The land was confiscated, the neighbor got it from the council for bugger all, Aunty died and this young fella moved to the big smoke to try and make his way in the world. The odds were completely stacked against him because he had few saleable skills and no community to help him in the impersonal 'big' city. He became what the newspapers call a 'gang member'. He is a lovely bloke that I trust with my life. Thank goodness after a few run ins with the law he scarpered back to the bush where he has settled with his wife and family. He has a few home made tattoos to show for his horrible time in town. Most others were not so lucky.

I have no doubt that the way that things like Sea Lord royalties are paid out to Iwi are grossly unfair but as far as I am concerned that is something best sorted out by Maori. It is certainly not sufficient reason for Pakeha to stop honouring their obligation under the treaty. If you feel strongly about it and feel you have something to offer to sort this out you should lend a hand if it is wanted.

There are all sorts of weirdnesses in the way that Pakeha favor some family members ahead of others in their will but I am unaware of anyone using that as the basis for arguing that inheritance should cease and when people die their assets be seized by the state. So why is it ok to deny Maori their birthright on those grounds?

If you dislike the precepts that NZ is founded on you have every right to move elsewhere but you don't have the right to change it just cause it doesn't suit you.

I agree that the labour government has become lazy and arrogant but as far as I could see they were the best of a bad bunch.

I can't understand why anyone would move to a country in the South Pacific and try and make it just like Europe which is what so many non-Maori New Zealanders appear to want to do.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 19 2005 5:12 utc | 22

@Billmon - A question for Bernhard (or anyone else up to speed on German politics): Could the SPD and the Greens remain in power as a minority government, by getting the Party of the Left to vote for another Schroeder government, without actually entering the coalition?

Possible, but quite unstable. That would be a kind of last resort solution which might be needed for some month, but pretty soon would lead to new elections.

Posted by: b | Sep 19 2005 6:05 utc | 23

Possible, but quite unstable.

Which leads me to another question: Why is the Party of the Left so radioactive? I mean, the GDR's been dead for almost 15 years, ex-Communists have come to power in other former east bloc countries, like Poland. The party's other leading lights are ex-SPDers. And they've got 54 fucking seats, enough to ensure a solid Red-Green (or should I say, really Red-Red-Green) majority. They got more votes than the Greens, and almost as many as those pathetic FDP weenies. Why not bring them in from the cold?

Posted by: Billmon | Sep 19 2005 6:39 utc | 24

Bernhard it is interesting that you find minority coalitions to be unstable in Germany. With our quite similar system in NZ most of the govetments have been minority coalitions. The biggest party strikes a deal with smaller ones on confidence and supply then cobbles together a different block for each piece of legislation. If it is a 'gay marriage' or welfare bill Ms Clark goes to the Greens and other leftish parties. If it is some law and order or finance bill she strikes a deal with one of the centre right parties. It seems to work and the beauty is no one can do anything too outlandish.

The small parties are worried about being consigned to the scrapheap of history if they bring down the government and force an election. They know most people hate elections believing that voting only encourages politicians.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 19 2005 6:58 utc | 25

@Billmon - very good question

There are three answers:
1. It is personal. Lafontaine, the ex SPD leader and now head of The Left had a fallout with Schröder and the top of the SPD.

2. It is historic. There had been a split between the SPD and its left wing in 1910/20s - see Wikipedia's USPD entry.

3. It is the political program. The Left has some points that are more incompatible with the current SPD (they are compatible with the SPD 20 years ago) than any others party program.

I do think 1. is the most important, followed by two.

I would really like a Red-Red-Green coalition, as would many other, but the SPD did take such a hard stand on them that there is only a very low probability for this. It will take some time for the SPD to understand that they have to absorb The Left again to stay in power.

Posted by: b | Sep 19 2005 6:58 utc | 26

WaPo has a good graphic explaining the German election system.

Posted by: b | Sep 19 2005 7:04 utc | 27

@Debs,

"If you dislike the precepts that NZ is founded on you have every right to move elsewhere but you don't have the right to change it just cause it doesn't suit you."

This is news to me. I immigrated to NZ quite legally. Under the provisions of the New Zealand constitution I now have every right - and intention for that matter - being a citizen of New Zealand to vote as I see fit. The effect of this may be to change the government, and therefore the laws, and even the constitution if it comes to that. I am also free to encourage others to vote as I would like them to.

What are you talking about? Is there some special right that a citizen born in the country has that an immigrant doesn't? I've never heard of this.

Posted by: PeeDee | Sep 19 2005 9:04 utc | 28

@Debs,

I've read several history books (Belich, King) on New Zealand, including one entirely devoted to the treaty (Round). Somehow I have gained a completely different understanding of it than you appear to have. Is there a similar source for the interpretation which you are putting forth?

Even so, I'm missing entirely your argument about how the current corrupt system of racial patronage is making the situation any better. The data show it isn't.

Posted by: PeeDee | Sep 19 2005 9:14 utc | 29

@PeeDee
"What are you talking about? Is there some special right that a citizen born in the country has that an immigrant doesn't? I've never heard of this"
No I'm not saying that I am saying that if you don't like living in a country where the original inhabitants have certain rights designed to protect their culture in the only nation it exists go away. The Maori in NZ have special rights. I don't have those rights and I don't want them. Everyone knows NZ is founded on the Treaty of Waitangi, if you don't like it piss off because I like many other are growing tired of people who have been around about 5 minutes trying to cause trouble between the Maori people and the the other Kiwis.

Time and time again the trouble makers in NZ turn out to be 10 pound poms. I also live in the South Island at the moment and I don't like the way that people who should know better are dividing our community.

The mayor of Picton a silly little pom who had been in the joint about 5 minutes instigated the whole foreshore confrontation with his insistence that Maori could not have a permit to start a mussel farm. Meanwhile all the fishing had been ruined in the harbour by the big corporate mussel farms so the Tangata Whenua took him to court and won. The next step was to scare white people into imagining this would mean they couldn't go to the beach anymore. Consequently Maori entitlement to seek title to foreshore through the court system was legislated out of existence. It was done very carefully to ensure the law only applied to Maori and the explosion that followed was all too predictable.

Why did this protein starved retard cause the trouble? His daughter had married a Maori and he couldn't handle it. I saw an interview with the fool once where he spouted the same sort of ethno-centric claptrap you did in your original post. Who the hell do you think you are to come to a country and tell the indigenous people how to divide their assets? The same sort of person who thinks he has an entitlement to steal all the Pounamu out of ore deposits that Tangata Whenua have carefully husbanded for centuries?

Since I've been in the South Island I have noticed that appears to be a growing pastime amongst the whitefellas. Oh that and complaining about Maori misspending "their" money. It may have been funded out of taxes but it was never anyone but the Tangata Whenua's and the sum total of decades of tax returns would still not compensate the Maori for the destruction that has been wreaked upon them by foreign cultures so certain of their own 'rightness' that they never ever stop and consider the impact of their actions. Whatever resources Maori manage to secure for themselves the rest of us should be parting with willingly. Yes I'm well aware that throwing money is unlikely to fix much but until Maori have escaped poverty they won't have much chance of working out what it is they really need.

I have worked for indigenous people right around the Pacific most of my life and Tangata Whenua are probably the most hospitable of all towards foreign cultures yet they have paid dearly for their generosity. Maybe not quite as badly as the people of Hawaii but certainly as badly as the Tahitians who are now suffering from radiation poisoning because some ignorant European culture decided to let a few thermo-nuclear devices off around them.

By all means stay if you like it in NZ the way it is, but don't dare to presume that you can possibly understand anything of the situation of Maori people by listening to the rednecks and skinheads that populate the South Island. Most of them wouldn't have a single Maori acquaintance much less friend.

One thing I learned very early in my travels was that one of the indicators of institutional racism is when the colonial culture manages to get some members of the indigenous group to criticise their culture to outsiders, even apologise for it.

Colonial racism comes from two places. The first is when new arrivals greedy for what they can get, take what they want from the colonised people. That is tiresome selfish and mean but also human. The second sort is the type of racism prevalent in the South Island of NZ where people have so little contact with other cultures they are ignorant about them. Ignorance breeds fear and fear breeds prejudice. This sort of racism is much more heartless than the first. The first type of racist generally has had enough contact with the other culture to at least see their humanity.
The second sort have absolutly no conception of the other culture apart from horror stories put about by media eager to sell their product.

I have just seen your most recent post. Are you telling me that despite your studies you are unaware that the treaty was written in two different versions? A maori and an english one? And that they had quite different meanings?

Go to a NZ govt site to see the different versions

"Even so, I'm missing entirely your argument about how the current corrupt system of racial patronage is making the situation any better. The data show it isn't."

I had an aquaintance from the US a few years ago who had managed to put together a nestegg of several million dollars in her lifetime. Now she chose not to pass it on to her family because she read a study suggesting that out of 100 people who inherit a million or more dollars only 14 when still have a million dollars when they die. That's fair enough but she didn't suggest that every other person be made to do the same.

Maori people are entitled to use their birthright as they wish without others deciding they don't like what's happening and taking it off them.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 19 2005 10:43 utc | 30

Heh heh the BBC is running the line that this uncertainty in Germany caused by unsureness over who won the election is a problem.

This must have happened in Germany before. Whenever I've seen it happen in other countries there is no problem. All it means is that no one will be meddling for a while.

Of course the corporates keep talking about how the stockmarket will drop. What that means is that they had been counting on a conservative government and now it looks like that may not happen their shares are worth less because they won't be able to force wages down as easily.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 19 2005 12:10 utc | 31

It will take some time for the SPD to understand that they have to absorb The Left again to stay in power.

At the moment, it's also looks like the ONLY arrangement that can lead to even a semi-stable coalition. I realize Schroeder and Lafontaine hate each other's guts, but this is about power. I mean, the Party of Left is left, but it's not exactly the Spartacus League.

Posted by: Billmon | Sep 19 2005 12:59 utc | 32

question for Debs- can you point me toward a good history of the moriori/maori story? i have read maori accounts that the moriori people were actually the original inhabitants of the region and that as the maori moved in, they wiped out these pacifist peoples. but then i see lots of references to the maori being recognized as the original inhabitants. thanks.

Posted by: b real | Sep 19 2005 14:51 utc | 33

b real,
Michael King's book "Moriori, A People Rediscovered". I think there's also a Moriori chapter in his "Penguin History of New Zealand".

Wikipedia has the basics, pretty much as I understand it.

Posted by: Cog in the machine | Sep 20 2005 0:07 utc | 34

b real: I should mention that the idea that Maori wiped out Moriori over the whole of the country is a myth. The Moriori were originally a South Island Maori tribe that colonised the Chathams (a small island group), establishing a pacifist culture there for some centuries, until the invasion by some Maori from Taranaki in 19th century.

Debs: by the way, thanks for your Treaty and NZ history perspective, and PeeDee for provoking you to write it. I find it rather laborious to produce screeds combining both clarity and length like that, and rather regret my inarticulacy; I wish I'd written your comments.

Like you, I've greeted this (NZ) election result with some relief, though I'm sad to see the Greens a couple of seats down.

Posted by: Cog in the machine | Sep 20 2005 1:52 utc | 35

bernhard.....thx for the info and background.

lexington.....thx for the comedy routine....bwahahahaha

Posted by: lenin's ghost | Sep 20 2005 2:26 utc | 36

@Cog in the machine
thank you. my only familiarity w/ the geography there comes superficially (such as roy montgomery's superb sonic diary, scenes from the south island) so i wasn't sure how far the moriori base reached. the encyclopedia of nz also has some details, if anyone else happens to be interested. i know that Debs has written of working w/ indigenous groups previously, so i was hoping maybe for a lead to some traditional insight/account. will check into dr. king's book, tho. thanks.

Posted by: b real | Sep 20 2005 2:48 utc | 37