In-Party Competition

               For the past several months, Democratic presidential candidates have been campaigning and participating in nationally televised debates in an effort to win the primary elections that are approaching. Although all of the candidates share some common ground, such as hating President Trump and despising his policies, they still differ in some key ways. Obviously, there is strong competition in between the Republican party and the Democratic party, but these debates provide evidence of in-party competition as well. This is a necessary component of parties because it allows the candidates to demonstrate who which of them is the strongest representative for the party. Through selecting the strongest candidate, a party increases their chances of winning the presidential election. This can be an ugly process, as we saw in the most recent Democratic presidential debate. Elizabeth Warren accused Bernie Sanders of saying that there is no way a woman could possibly win the 202 presidential election. In return, Sanders denied the accusation. After the debate, a hot mic caught the confrontation between Warren and Sanders in which Warren accused Sanders of calling her a liar on national TV. This was pretty astonishing to me. Not only are Warren and Sanders both members of the same party, but they are also the two most similarly leftist candidates in the running for the Democratic party. It was a bold move of Warren to initiate this confrontation with the candidate who is most similar to her. It is evidence though that politicians act completely out of self-interest when running for office.

            In the reading “Why Parties?”, Aldrich gives three reasons for why parties exist. I want to focus on the third reason, which is competition for office. Aldrich believes that this reason is representative of the rational choice theory because politicians seeking office are motivated out of self-interest to win elections. Parties facilitate this process by selecting the most competitive candidate to represent their party. It is a mutually beneficial process in which the politician benefits from the support of the party, and the party benefits from having their policy preferences represented and carried out by the politician who is elected to office. Aldrich compares this to the genius economic discovery by Adam Smith. Smith noted how individuals are always economically self-interested, and he discovered that the individual self-interest of the entire country is what led to the prosperity of the economy. Aldrich compared these self-interested members of society to self-interested politicians. Because politicians are self-interested, they seek to win elections. That is their ultimate goal. They realize that in order to this, they must represent the majority of the people in the policies that they support and propose because that is the only way for them to gain that majority’s vote. Without their votes, the politician has no hope of being elected. Thus, self-interest leads to a mutually beneficial relationship between politicians and their constituents.

            The campaigning efforts of the candidates and the Democratic presidential debates help me to better understand this aspect of politics. I used to wonder why presidential candidates who belonged to the same party would fight so ferociously with each other during debates when they are “playing for the same team.” It never made sense to me why they would bath-mouth each other in an effort to get ahead, such as we saw in the altercation between Warren and Sanders. It seemed to me that they should have been spending their time and effort on demeaning those in the opposing party, A.K.A. Donald Trump. What I did not consider, though, was the competitive aspect of elections. Even though candidates running for office are part of the same party, they are still competing with each other to be selected as the representative of the party. It is out of self-interest. The self-interest goes both ways, though. Not only do candidates try to outdo their opponents for their own benefit–to gain office–but the party itself votes on the candidate that most represents the policies and ideas that they support. Campaigning and debating are mutually beneficial practices for office-seeking politicians and also voting members of a political party. After the primaries, it will be interesting to see how the Democratic candidate changes his or her competitive approach. Instead of in-party competition, they will start competing with the other party’s candidate–Donald Trump. I cannot help but agree wholeheartedly with Aldrich when he compared this constant political competition to a capitalistic society. As long as there is competition, the country will thrive more than it would otherwise because politicians are constantly motivated to represent their party as much as possible so that they will be elected. As a result, parties have candidates who represent their interests more than they otherwise would without the element of competition.

Impeachment as a Electoral Tool: Trump, Republicans, and the 2018 Midterms

(Source: Time Magazine, 2017)

With Democrats poised to make significant gains in the upcoming midterms, Republicans have turned to an unusual strategy to rally support; talking about the impeachment of President Trump.

Out on campaigns, Republican candidates have been talking about what a Democrat-controlled Congress might mean for the future of America, chiefly, the impeachment of the President. While it is not clear how seriously Republican elites take this, talking about it has two important effects. First, trumpeting the impending impeachment of President Trump has made it easier for Republican candidates to secure donations, especially at the grassroots level. Second, Republican leaders are hoping that this once fear-mongering technique turned mainstream appeal will scare Republican voters into showing up in November. Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski remarked that “The threat of impeachment is something that unifies everybody in the party, even if you’re not a Trump supporter.”

Democrats have had mixed reactions to this development. Some on the far left have seized on the idea of impeachment, while Democrat party leadership has tried to keep quiet about the issue and, as the New York Times remarked, “focus on substantive issues.” In fact, party notables from both sides have expressed frustration with the emergence of impeachment as a polarizing and immaterial issue so early in the midterms. Former strategist for Newt Gingrich, Mike Shields, has said that “Republicans should leave that insanity to the left,” while former strategist for Barack Obama, David Axelrod, has cautioned that “if impeachment becomes a political tool instead of the end result of a credible investigation, then you are as guilty as Trump, in some ways, of taking a hammer blow to institutions.”

It seems unusual that Republicans are using a tool like the threat of impeachment to mobilize voters. Those who study elections tell us that political parties usually don’t use external threats to mobilize support. Rather, parties generally go after those who already predisposed to vote, will support their own party, and who have more social and economic resources. Parties also only really care about voter mobilization in politically contested areas (i.e. swing states). As methods of data collection and interpretation improve, parties have also moved towards using variables such as an individual’s income, age, civic involvement, social network, and even their consumer habits to predict ideology and reach out to potential voters.

And while the threat of impeachment for President Trump is arguably present, it is not imminent. In January, when a vote was held in the House to begin the impeachment process, only 66 Democrats voted in favor, not even close to half of the caucus. Public polling has found that a plurality, not a majority, of voters favor Trump’s impeachment.  With this in mind, it is rather confusing as to why Republican elites would adapt a previously fringe message to use as a common mobilizer in the upcoming elections.

One possible explanation is the regular disparities that have arisen between Republican legislators and President Trump. Trump’s views are sometimes not shared by those in his party, and these disparities have made it difficult for Republican midterm candidates. The administration’s escalating trade conflict with China is a recent example. Farmers, who are generally a part of the Republican voter base, have not been happy with Trump’s tariffs and the resulting trade conflicts, as China has specifically targeted Trump voters using tit for tat economic sanctions. Republican midterm candidates are worried that these unhappy constituents will not yield favorable electoral outcomes and have asked the administration to consider a more strategic approach.

Another possible explanation takes into consideration the currently fragmented nature of the Republican electorate. A recent slew of scandals from the Trump administration has potentially alienated Republican voters. To combat this fragmentation, it’s possible Republican leaders are using fear of Trump’s impeachment to solidify the Republican base, and to frame the upcoming midterm elections in a more stable us-versus-them way. Whatever the reason for this unusual strategy, time will tell whether it is effective.

Expropriation without Compensation!

South Africa is in a state of turmoil as they adjust to their new presidency. In February of this year, the old president Jacob Zuma left office, and is currently facing criminal charges for fraud. South Africa’s newest president, Cyril Ramaphosawas elected this year from the ruling party, the African National Congress. (ANC). As Zuma’s replacement, he ran on the policies and promises that the African people of South Africa would once again regain control of their native lands. What does this mean exactly?

On February 27, 2018, a vote was held in parliament to recover and seize all lands from white farmers in South Africa. A Marxist opposition leader, Julius Malemaproposed the notion to the parliament, hoping that the new president would act. The notion passed in parliament, with a vote of 241 to 83. Mr. Malema was quoted to say, “Reconciliation is over.” He along with the black South African majority in parliament are seeking repercussions for the decades of apartheid in the nations recent past. “We must ensure that we restore the dignity of our people without compensating the criminals who stole our land.”

Census reports have noted that nearly 72% of all farm land is owned by white South Africans, and has been slowly declining since the end of the Apartheid. Many are worried that taking the land away from citizens of any race without compensation will cause unforeseeable consequences in the future. Not to fare ago in the past, the Zimbabwe government enacted a similar policy in their nation. To this day, they are seeing the economic and humanitarian effects of that decision. This is a direct violation of the nation’s current standing constitution, where it was amended nearly two decades prior to protect the land of white owners. This was done with the knowledge that whites are a minority in the country and that their property was to be protected at the end of the Apartheid. The Constitution is now undergoing the amendment process to strip white South African of their land without compensations.

Not even into the third month of the new year and already the nation has seen the murder of fifteen white farmers, and over one hundred and nine attacks. Every five days one white south African is killed over the color of his skin and the land he owns. Julius Malema was quoted to say in 2016, that he is “not calling for the slaughter of white people - at least for now”. Thousands of people are worried for their safety in a nation that clearly does not care for their basic human right to life.

Peterson’s motivated reasoning and political parties say that voters are reliant on the social ques of their party’s leaders to help them make political decisions. The research shows that even when parties cross the line into unfamiliar territory about a new policy issues, that the voters will usually follow their lead. We can see this happening in South Africa, the Politian’s are voicing an opinion that they say the masses are wanting communicated. Despite their harsh past both blacks and whites in South Africa have learned how to live peacefully for nearly two decades. Maybe, the violence towards white land owners is really occurring from a small minority of individuals and the president’s agenda. They could be too afraid to admit that the minority Marxist party members are controlling the outcome, over fear of losing their heritage and dignity if they do not go along with what the masses seem to want. No matter the cause, this endemic humanitarian crisis is affecting the lives and international relations of South Africa. What will happen to theses land owners? Some have begun petitions to get them visas to come to the United States, although that is a whole other problematic topic. 

References

Mailonline, Ben Hill For. “'We Are Not Calling for the Slaughter of White People - at Least for Now': South African Parliament Votes to SEIZE White-Owned Land as Experts Warn of Violent Repercussions.” Daily Mail Online, Associated Newspapers, 28 Feb. 2018, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5443599/White-South-African-farmers-removed-land.html.

Cole, Brendan. “A White Farmer Is Killed Every Five Days in South Africa and Authorities Do Nothing about It, Activists Say.” Newsweek, Newsweek, 19 Mar. 2018, www.newsweek.com/white-farmer-killed-every-five-days-south-africa-authorities-do-nothing-851470.

An Odd Couple: Solutions in German Coalition Formation

Germany’s colorful political history assures that the ideologies of its various political parties are no less varied. While apparent in campaigns and party manifestos, the salience of these cleavages becomes most apparent when it comes time to form coalitions. After more than four months of coalitions negotiations following the 2016 federal elections, the German party heads finally reach an agreement to form a grand coalition between the SPD and the CDU/CSU. Research on the intricacies of coalition formation both before and after elections coupled with a knowledge of Germany’s political landscape can lend to understanding of the challenges German politicians faced forming a government in the wake of a political shakeup.

The following is an introduction to German political parties to set the stage:  

The Left Party

Born from the ashes of the East German socialist party after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Die Linke exhibits ideology that is both fiscally and socially highly liberal.

The Green Party

A champion of environmental and social awareness and sustainability, the party entered the German political sphere as a result of a merger between the East and West German Green parties after reunification in 1990.

The Free Democratic Party (FDP)

The pro-business Free Democratic Party has long been a proponent of market liberalism and civil liberties and is often a coalition partner with the far-larger CDU/CSU.

Alternative for Germany (AfD)

The nationalist right-wing party was developed by a group of Germany professors skeptical of EU influence in the German economy. The party has since become known for its harsh stance on immigration.

The Socialist Democratic Party (SPD)

Established as a Marxist party in the late nineteenth century and then again as a socialist party after World War II, the SPD represents the interests of workers and unions.

The Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU)

The CDU, and her Bavarian sister party the CSU, together form the German conservative party alliance that promotes a fiscally conservative agenda and often more traditional social policy.

In the 2016 federal elections, the CDU/CSU suffered considerable losses caused by voter defection to the AfD and the FDP while the SPD experienced losses to smaller left-wing parties; The Left and the Greens. Although the CDU/CSU still won a plurality of the votes, achieving its lowest election result since 1949 gave it significantly less power at the start of coalition negotiations.

CDU/CSU party heads declared they would begin coalition negotiations with the intention of forming a “Jamaica Coalition,” with the FDP and Green parties (a nod to the black-green-yellow Jamaican flag). As months dragged on and no deal had been reached, rumors started to circulate that a grand coalition between the SPD and CDU/CSU was in the works. On February 7, 2018, Angela Merkel announced a coalition government between the CDU/CSU and their direct opponent, the SPD. This announcements was surprising considering the SPD had announced it would, under no circumstances, enter a coalition with the CDU/CSU. So what happened? Scholarly research regarding how German government institutions such as bicameralism and the investiture vote affect which parties form can and will form coalitions after elections.

Merkel stand beside coalition partners Horst Seehofer (CSU) and Sigmar Gabriel (SPD)

Political scholars Sven-Oliver Proksch and Jonathan B. Slapin’s analysis of the importance of investiture votes and unicameralism yield interesting insight into the affects both institutions have on the formation of coalitions. First, minority governments are unlikely to form in Germany, because the investiture vote requires the potential ruling coalitions to receive a vote of support from the majority of parliament. If a minority government tries for the vote and doesn’t succeed, it cannot rule. Second, the CDU/CSU controls higher chamber of parliament which votes on the majority of legislation passed by the lower chamber, the Bundestag. This disincentivizes left-leaning parties from attempting to form governments and nearly ensures that the governing coalition will in some way have to include the CDU/CSU.

Given these constraints, many potential coalitions were ruled out because the barriers imposed are just to great. Here is why two of the most like coalitions did not succeed:

CDU/CSU - FDP

This coalition between two pro-business parties that have limited social policy differences seems to be one of the most likely. A CDU/CSU-FDP government would have little problem passing policy through the Bundesrat, but would likely never get there as it would be a minority government and would likely be kept away from ruling by a lack of support for an investiture vote.

SPD - Left - Green

A coalition of Germany’s left parties would also be unlikely to get past an investiture vote. And even if it did, a large portion of its legislation would never make it past the Bundesrat. Together, these two institutional barriers prevented the success of a coalition from the left.

A final potential solution could have overcome the institutional barriers to coalition formation but encountered a problem that political scientists find much more difficult to study. Throughout the course of coalition negotiations, no party made any attempt to form a government with the AfD. The AfD and CDU/CSU were ideologically closer than most other coalition configurations, but the AfD was never a part of coalition negotiation. This is likely because the incendiary and controversial nature of the AfD’s stance on policies made the AfD an “untouchable” coalition partner. Parties feared that allying with the AfD would follow them into the next election cycle and serve as fodder against their candidates.

Photo Credit Table: https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2017/sep/24/german-elections-2017-latest-results-live-merkel-bundestag-afd

Photo Credit Party Leaders: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/904040/Emmanuel-Macron-Angela-Merkel-new-alliance-Austria-Sebastian-Kurz

Coalition Building in Brazil

          In democratic systems like Brazil, where seats in the lower house of the national legislature are allocated proportionally, there are usually many political parties elected to govern. Because of this, none of them attains a majority in the legislature necessary to pass laws and form a cohesive government. In these systems, parties and interest groups generally band together to form coalitions. Two or three parties or groups usually ally together to form a bloc. These parties agree to vote support one another’s legislative priorities and vote for each other’s bills after unifying around a similar ideology or policy agenda. Golder gives a thorough analysis of the importance and influence of coalitions in the German political system by examining the possible coalitions that could have formed after the 2005 German elections in her article.

            Golder argues that the German electoral system makes it difficult for small parties to form coalitions against the largest parties and therefore led to the grand coalition between the CDU and SPD in 2005. In a similar manner, the Brazilian electoral system influences which coalitions form. For example, one of Brazil's most serious institutional challenges is "coalitional presidentialism", a system in which the president must form and govern over a multiparty coalition, which becomes more difficult the more parties are involved. There are more than eight political parties in the Brazilian legislature with more than 5 percent of the seats. Because of this, Brazil’s electoral system requires the president to do a lot of political bargaining in order to maintain a coalition.

Through the late 1990s and early 2000s, democracies in Latin America experienced a strong move to the left as socialist governments came to power. These governments nationalized industries, increased social spending, provided large benefits to workers, and implemented radical political agendas. This rise of the left was given the name of the “pink tide”. However, large-scale corruption scandals and economic decline greatly discredited these leftist governments. As the strength of these leftist parties has waned, conservative Brazilian parties have become more popular.

Brazil is one country that has experienced a shift to the right after the ebb of the pink tide. Since the 2014 elections, Brazil has been governed by the so-called “Bible, beef, and bullets” lobby. This coalition is made up of evangelical Christian politicians and interest groups, the farm lobby and conservative lawmakers determined to ease strict firearms controls. The farm lobby, backed by the booming agribusiness sector, won 42 percent of the seats in Brazil’s lower house, the Chamber of Deputies, and one quarter of the seats in the Senate. Evangelical Christian lawmakers won a further 76 of the 513 seats in the Chamber of Deputies, greatly due to financial assistance from Brazil’s fast-growing Pentecostal churches. The ideological alliance between the evangelicals, farmers, and gun lobby is made up of lawmakers from many different political parties. However, these lawmakers chose to ally with one another to form a coalition because they vote similarly on social and economic issues. These groups consistently opposed the advance of gay rights and reproductive rights for women. They united together with a common goal to pass conservative legislation. Now they want to restrict gay rights and abortion, lower the age of criminal responsibility and advance farmers’ interests in conflicts with Indian tribes.

These three groups agreed to support Michel Temer’s presidency in exchange for the executive branch’s support in achieving these policy goals despite his possible implication in the Petrobras corruption scandal that brought about the impeachment of his predecessor, Dilma Rousseff. It seems that the coalitions efforts to achieve these policy objectives are succeeding. Bills to relax Brazil’s strict gun laws, reduce the age of criminal responsibility to 16 years old, and ban abortion even in cases of rape are passing in Brazil’s lower house. Furthermore, a bill to undo key parts of Brazil’s 2003 Disarmament Law, which was praised as a key step toward containing crime and robbery in cities was passed in committee last year.

A spokesman for President Temer’s government said that his cabinet voiced its support for most of the Bible, beef, and bullet’s lobby’s agenda. In a further move to consolidate his support among members of this coalition, President Temer appointed Blairo Maggi as Minister of Agriculture. Maggi is the owner of the Brazilian company Ammagi Group, the world’s largest soybean producer.

Although the Bible, beef, and bullets coalition in currently ruling Brazil, President Temer faces the difficult prospect of keeping the coalition together. Some members of the coalition are beginning to oppose his presidency because of the strong evidence that he was involved in the Petrobras scandal. Some also argue that his efforts to bring about economic reform and end the current crisis is not working. Temer barely survived a vote in the lower house to put him on trial for corruption charges.

In conclusion, the large number of parties in the Brazilian political system causes the Brazilian president to have difficulty controlling the governing coalitions. The decreasing popularity of the leftist parties in Latin America has also caused conservative parties to rise and allowed for the formation of the Bible, beef, and bullets lobby. Only time will tell if President Temer can maintain this coalition and keep his party in control of the presidency.