![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewduckerGermany just got a 13% vote for the populist anti-foreigner party. In 2015 Britain also got a 13% vote for their populist anti-foreigner party.
In Germany that will result in them getting some MPs in a separate party, and their centre-right party will do a deal with someone more central (their centre-left party last time, probably the Greens and the liberals this time around). Total influence of the far-right: almost zero.
In Britain this resulted in the Conservatives basically implementing the manifesto commitments of UKIP in order to stop their party fragmenting. Total influence of the far-right: Brexit.
This is _entirely_ down to the voting system. Germany has basically had the equivalent of a Lab+Con coalition for most of the last ten years, and the parties are constantly moderated by having to work with each other. Even France's two-tier presidential elections allowed people to vote for a relative outsider.
In Britain you end up with two main parties which spend all of their time scrambling to keep both wings together. It's a political system which, frankly, encourages extremism by making the more central politicians reliant on the further-out wings of their parties.
In Germany that will result in them getting some MPs in a separate party, and their centre-right party will do a deal with someone more central (their centre-left party last time, probably the Greens and the liberals this time around). Total influence of the far-right: almost zero.
In Britain this resulted in the Conservatives basically implementing the manifesto commitments of UKIP in order to stop their party fragmenting. Total influence of the far-right: Brexit.
This is _entirely_ down to the voting system. Germany has basically had the equivalent of a Lab+Con coalition for most of the last ten years, and the parties are constantly moderated by having to work with each other. Even France's two-tier presidential elections allowed people to vote for a relative outsider.
In Britain you end up with two main parties which spend all of their time scrambling to keep both wings together. It's a political system which, frankly, encourages extremism by making the more central politicians reliant on the further-out wings of their parties.
no subject
Date: 2017-09-25 11:18 am (UTC)It's funny, because in some ways the far right *looks* more successful on the rest of the continent, because they have actual MPs. And I'd always taken that to be a downside of a more proportional system. But you make a persuasive point that it may not work like that.
Although labour don't seem to have been captured by green interests :(
no subject
Date: 2017-09-25 11:26 am (UTC)Depressing, innit? :o(
no subject
Date: 2017-09-25 12:56 pm (UTC)The biggest political problem, though (aside from Merkel and Schulz having fallen out with each other in the election, which they might get over with enough time and motivation), is that if there is another grand coalition, the role of official opposition would go to the party that came third in the elections: AfD.
I strongly suspect that this is a major part of the reason for Schulz wanting to lead the opposition rather than the junior governing party, and is the only reason the 'Jamaica' coalition is remotely possible. The Greens and the FDP are not natural partners.
And either way, AfD have plenty of seats in the Bundestag (a little over 13%, I would guess) and will be using every opportunity to make their particular sort of mischief with that power and platform.
Also, I wouldn't be entirely sanguine about France's presidential election system: we've twice had a nasty scare when the Front National made it to the run-off.
no subject
Date: 2017-09-25 01:01 pm (UTC)And voting against them didn't mean purple had to vote against their interests in round 1.
What can AfD do with 13% of the seats? Other than be ignored?
no subject
Date: 2017-09-25 03:08 pm (UTC)And voting against them didn't mean purple had to vote against their interests in round 1
Yeah, true. It is better than the Westminster system in many ways, for sure.
What can AfD do with 13% of the seats? Other than be ignored?
Chair about 13% of the committees that do most of the legislative work. Get about 13% of the speaking time on debates and questions to the executive. And receive substantial funding to support their activities.
It's a fair point that they may not make the best use of those resources to further their ends - UKIP in the European Parliament is a case in point, and my impression is AfD is largely held in greater horror by everyone else in the Bundestag than even UKIP in the EP, so the natural direction to go is straight-up protest and defiance rather than the more insidious sort of stuff that would make a material difference to legislation - not least because that's probably what their constituency would appreciate.