Chancellor Merkel, At Last!

At last, Germany has a government. Six weeks ago Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union narrowly defeated the Social Democrats at the polls, but the victory was so narrow that neither major party could form a governing coalition. At last, on Friday, delicate negotiations produced a "grand coalition" of the two major parties that opened the way for her to become the nation's first female chancellor [way to go gal!].

There is some question as to how effective the new government can be. During the campaign Ms. Merkel was widely seen as a German version of Maggie Thatcher -- a dynamic conservative who would bring major reforms to a stagnant economy -- but with her antagonists controling half the government ministries that is no longer in the cards. The New York Times reports:

Mrs. Merkel has survived a perilous passage to becoming the chancellor-designate since the federal elections on Sept. 19. Her party, which had once been expected to win in a landslide, finished in a virtual tie with the Social Democrats, requiring delicate talks to work out the sharing of power.

Mr. Schröder initially refused to yield to her as chancellor, before relenting last month. Then the negotiations to cobble together a coalition were jeopardized by dissension within the Social Democrats and the defection of one of Mrs. Merkel's most prominent conservative rivals.

Even now, the two parties must ratify the agreement. If they do sign off, as is generally expected, Mrs. Merkel would be elected chancellor by Parliament on Nov. 22.

She would emerge from that vote with half her cabinet - including the foreign, finance, and labor ministries - in the hands of her former political opponents, the Social Democrats.

Even more important, Mrs. Merkel has had to set aside many of her proposals for overhauling Germany's economy, including a simpler tax regimen; reform of health care and pensions; and a more flexible labor market. The Social Democrats objected to Mrs. Merkel's proposals to curb unions and to make it easier to dismiss workers.

Plans to restructure the medical and pension systems were also either watered down or deferred. And the Social Democrats succeeded in nudging up the tax rate for people with high salaries.

The result of all this compromise, critics say, is a coalition agreement that has as its boldest initiative an increase in the value-added tax to 19 percent, from 16 percent. The government would use the extra revenue to plug its vast budget deficit, which is in violation of European Union laws.

"This really gives no hope to anybody in Germany for political mobilization," said Claus Leggewie, a political science professor at Giessen University. "Germans would like one idea, one phrase, one catchword to encourage them. This is the lowest common denominator."

Other critics said the agreement would do little to recharge Germany's economy, which has been stagnant for three years. On the contrary, some say the government's plan to whittle down the deficit by raising taxes and cutting spending would further hinder growth.

Read it here.

This seems to fit a broader pattern throughout the West. The bold, often disruptive, initiatives initiated in the era of Reagan and Thatcher are running into ever stiffer opposition. In nation after nation the public has shown a disinclination to engage in radical reform, preferring instead to see small, modulated changes that for the most part leave intact the major institutional arrangements that have evolved gradually over the past half century. Witness, for instance, the widespread political opposition roused by Bush and Blair's bold initiatives in both foreign and domestic policy. These are great men ruling in an age that prefers complacent mediocrity. That is why a glorified hack like Bill Clinton remains so popular.

This frustrates those politicians and pundits, on both the left and right, who long for radical, decisive change and incites them to paroxysms of rage, but it fits well the needs of ordinary people who have organized their lives around existing institutions and arrangements, and ultimately, in a democratic polity, those are the people whose needs must be served.