Soon-to-be German chancellor Friedrich Merz from the CDU proposed along with the democratic socialists who will be members of his coalition government to bring about a controversial change to the country's constitution. This needed a two thirds vote in Parliament to go through. On its back, the limits on national debt imposed by the constitution would be relaxed. Following negotiations with the Greens who were left out of the coalition government, they were to vote for the constitutional change which was slated to pass, albeit with a not so impressive two thirds vote. And it did.
What is strange is that the Parliament requested to vote on the matter was the "old" one, not that elected in last month's poll. According to German practice, the "old" Parliament remained active till a week following the constitutional vote. Merz and his colleagues decided to propose the change to the MPs who were coming to the end of their mandate. They knew that in the new Parliament their proposals would be shot down.
But from a democratic perspective does this make sense? Unsurprisngly on this matter as well, controversy arose. Many felt uneasy with such a procedure.
***
NEW PARTIES
How should a new or a minority party build popular support in its favour? In Malta it appears that current promoters of new political formations believe it can be done by establishing groups of people who advance political proposals on areas about which people worry, such as the environment and construction. There is a certain "natural" logic in such a strategy but how effective is it?
Without mobilisation of support from below, it is dubious how a "new" party can fly. The last time this happened here was in the 1960's. The two new parties which emerged - Ganado's Democratic Nationalist Party and Pellegrini's Christian Workers' Party - separately built on part of PN and PL supporters who were hurt by, or very fearful of, the turn that their party had taken.
It does not seem like today's new parties can benefit from the same electoral dynamic.
***
MEMORIES
Some doubt whether it's true that today's political positions are conditioned by what happened in history yesterday and before that. (Not so long ago I mentioned the topic in this blog.) For me it's evident that this is the case but not everybody agrees. Consider two instances.
In the manner by which today's Russian decision makers consider their surroundings, it is surely the case that they must still remember in a big way how in the mid-1990's, following the collapse of the USSR and the introduction of economic reforms blessed by the West, the Russian people experienced huge hardships, including famine.
In the way by which decision makers in Poland evaluate today their circumstances, they will be surely recalling how their country was betrayed and dismembered by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
The recall of such overpowering experiences (and other similar instances) is an integral part in how the political choices they face are dealt with by these two countries. The same applies as well to decision makers of other countries.