[The following article was published in the March 28 issue of Inprecor, a French-language fortnightly published in Paris under the auspices of the United Secretariat of the Fourth International. The article was based on a statement by the International Marxist Group (GIM), German section of the Fourth International, published in the March 10 issue of its newspaper Was Tun.
[The translation is by Intercontinental Press.]
Thirteen years in which the Social Democratic Party (SPD) exerted majority control over the West German federal government came to an end in October 1982. In mid-September the governing alliance between Helmut Schmidt's Social Democrats and the Free Democratic Party (FDP) had broken up. A new coalition government made up of the FDP and the main bourgeois formation, the Christian Democratic Union Christian Social Union (CDU-CSU) was formed in October 1982 under the leadership of Helmut Kohl.
The change in alliances took place over the question of economic policy, and specifically over differences concerning austerity proposals put forward by the FDP minister of the economy in the Schmidt government, Count Otto von Lambsdorff. This fact indicates what the real stakes were in the parliamentary elections held March 6.
As a result of the Social Democratic policy regarding the economic crisis, the position of workers has deteriorated considerably in recent years. In 1980 the number of bankruptcies and unemployed workers skyrocketed. By January of 1983 there were 2.5 million people out of work, that is, 10.2 percent of the economically active population.
Since 1980 real wages of workers have steadily fallen. The 1981 and 1982 budgets already reflected a partial abandonment of the social protection measures so dear to the Social Democratic theory of "social capitalism."
But in this realm the political program of the formations that make up the new government (FDP, CDU-CSU) is unequivocal. The minister of labor in Helmut Kohl's cabinet, who had previously decided to slow the rise in social benefit payments, recently justified his proposal for a six-month pause in wage increases by stating: "What has been demanded of beneficiaries of social payments must be demanded of everyone."
The fact that the CDU-SU-FDP alliance won an absolute majority of the votes in the March 6 parliamentary elections is therefore a clear defeat for the workers. In fact, the CDU- CSU by itself came close to getting an absolute majority, taking 48.8 percent, a gain of 4.3 percent compared to the legislative elections of 1980.
The FP was able to go over the 5 percent needed to get members in parliament under the proportional representation system, although its vote dropped from 10.6 percent in 1980 to 6.9 percent this time.
Finally, the "Greens," the ecological current, assured their entry into parliament by taking 5.6 percent of the vote and attaining big tallies in some urban centers.
The SPD vote declined 4.7 percent between the 1980 and 1983 elections, and it is estimated that nearly 2 million of its voters cast their ballots this time for the bourgeois formations.
Austerity strengthened
The SPD's defeat is therefore very significant for the workers. First it strengthens the austerity campaign being waged by the CDU- CSU and its FDP allies. In addition, it strengthens the whole imperialist camp, in particular fostering the all-out militarization policy of U.S. imperialism.
The best proof of this is that immediately after the results of the March 6 West German elections, President Ronald Reagan made a very aggressive speech against the Soviet Union and the Central American revolutions.
It is true that in 1979 the SPD supported the proposal by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to install U.S. nuclear missiles on German soil, and has never changed that position. But the SPD has shown in practice that it is susceptible to the strong pressure of the peace movement, which has carried out imposing demonstrations in recent years.
By contrast, the alliance now governing West Germany has never hidden its support for Reagan's notorious "zero option."* At a time when Reagan is stepping up his military pres-
*Washington's "zero option" proposal is an attempt to undercut opposition in Western Europe to the placement of 572 new U.S. Pershing Il and cruise missiles in West Germany, Italy, Britain, the Netherlands, and Belgium. From their bases in Western Europe, these missiles could hit Soviet targets in as little as six minutes.
The Reagan administration has offered to forego deployment of these new missiles, if the Soviet Union agrees to dismantle all its existing intermediate range ballistic missiles. The "zero option" plan would, however, leave already existing French and British missiles targeted on the Soviet Union in place. - IP
sures in Central America and is boosting the arms race, he finds in Germany a particularly understanding partner, installed by a solid legislative majority.
That is why the declaration of the International Marxist Group (GIM), the German section of the Fourth International, noted in the March 10 issue of its newspaper Was Tun, "that an iron triangle can now be forged between the Reagan, Thatcher, and Kohl-Strauss governments. The common program of all these regimes is austerity, mass unemployment, stepped-up armament, and military pressures on the Soviet Union."
This victory by the right therefore marks a real turning point in Bonn. A period of 13 years of successive Social Democratic governments, to which must be added a little more than three years of previous governments in which the Social Democrats participated, has now come to a close. The bourgeois coalition government that came in in October 1982 will now have a free hand for a period of four years," the GIM statement noted.
No capitalist stability
The bourgeois electoral victory does not mean, however, a return to an era of capitalist stability like the one that marked the 1950s. Today, "the big majority for the bourgeois bloc in Bonn cannot be compared with the seemingly similar electoral strength it had in the 1950s and 1960s. At that time the bourgeois parties represented the boom. The growth of the economy was bringing everyone a higher living standard, shorter working hours, and longer vacations.
*The 1980s are a quite different period. They are bringing a decline in the standard of living, growing mass unemployment, work speedups, and social cuts. Wage earners have already felt the effects of this. They know that the Christian Democratic and liberal politicians were for a tough proemployer policy in the crisis and for cuts at the expense of the masses. This fact shows that a turning point has been reached and is a clear indication of the defeat sustained by the workers."
The March 6 elections also marked the complete bankruptcy of the "social capitalism" policy of the Social Democrats. The famous "German model" has therefore been dealt a significant blow. The election proposals made by Social Democratic candidate Hans Jochen Vogel for a "pact of national solidarity" against unemployment got no response.
Willy Brandt, the leader of the SPD, acknowledged with some chagrin that "the voters believe that Chancellor Kohl is the most
Kohl (left) with rightist leader Franz Josef Strauss.
capable of lowering the unemployment that hits 2.5 million West Germans.
Concern over unemployment
While an opinion poll taken at the time of the 1980 parliamentary elections had indicated that 58 percent of the voters considered unemployment the main problem, a similar inquiry in February 1983 showed that unemployment was the main concern of 88 percent of those polled. A majority also opposed the stationing of nuclear missiles on West German soil.
soibut the result of the March 6 election shows that the immediate concern over mounting unemployment had the most impact on how people voted.
In this regard, the GIM statement noted:
"Geissler, the chief ideologist of the Christian Democrats, claimed: "We won with the support of the workers'
.... In fact, the
Christian Democrats scored their biggest gains in former SPD strongholds. In the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, where the SPD had an absolute majority, the CDU is now the strongest party. It is estimated that two million former SPD voters have crossed over to the Christian Democrats, whereas the SPD won hardly anyone from them.
"On election night, [SPD representative] Glotz said: "The Christian Democrats won with their talk about an economic upswing That was one of the few true things the SPD said that evening. But it was only a half truth.
"The main issue in this election was, in fact, the mass unemployment and not the missiles. The 19 million who voted for the Christian Democrats, including the majority of wage earners, wanted to vote for an economic uptum.
"The Christian Democrats had said that an upturn was possible only under a Kohl government. This demagogy was backed up with threats of an investment strike and letters from the bosses to their personnel calling on them to vote for the Christian Democrats because there would be massive layoffs if they did not win.
"This campaign, however, could succeed only because the SPD offered no alternative. It also promised sacrifice' for the wage earners and a 'not so drastic' austerity.
"With this policy, the SPD undermined its positions precisely where it should have buttressed them. It lost specifically on the issue where it traditionally had the advantage over the Christian Democrats. . . •
"Shortly before the elections, the polls indicated that 57 percent had more confidence in the Christian Democrats' ability to cut unemployment.
"If everyone was saying that an austerity policy was necessary, then it would be better to do it 'right' in order to prepare the way for an upturn. If capitalism was the only possible system, then better vote for the party that has the confidence of the capitalists and not for those whom the bosses threaten with a continued investment strike.
Gains for 'Greens'
The most notable result of this election was that the ecologists, the "Greens," who got 2.2 million votes (5.6 percent of the total), will have 27 members of parliament.
The Greens took an impressive number of votes from among the SPD's electorate. They obtained more than 10 percent of the total in four areas, two of which were in urban voting districts in Hamburg and Bremen. They got between 4 and 5 percent of the vote in the industrial Ruhr region.
On the evening of the election, Green leader Petra Kelly stated: "We will seek extraparliamentary action. The only bright spot in this vote is that for the first time in the history of West Germany, with the exception of the immediate postwar period, a group to the left of the SPD will be represented in parliament, a group that clearly says that it will use its positions to promote mass mobilizations, especially against the stationing of the missiles.
Nonetheless, the Green vote was lower than expected, because the leadership of this current refused to try to build an enlarged left bloc, or to openly support a SPD government against the right.
More fundamentally, noted the GIM statement: "The decisive weakness of the Greens is exactly the same as the SPD, the question of unemployment. The Greens either said nothing about this or did not go beyond abstractions.• •
*The election result is a rude awakening, moreover, for a section of the left that concentrated entirely on the question of whether the Greens could pass the 5 percent mark. This goal was reached. But the decisive thing is that there was no majority for an SPD government."
'Constructive opposition'?
The GIM blasted declarations by the leaders of the SPD, who said that the voters had delivered their verdict and it would have to be respected. The GIM statement maintained:
spected. The GIM statement maintained:
"The voters were not able to decide on the main questions in their daily lives and concerns. The turn in Bonn must not be respected • . . it must be fought. What is needed is not "constructive opposition' as Vogel says, but hard and consistent resistance to Kohl and the capitalists in the factories, the offices, the streets, and in front of NATO bases.
"Sixty-five percent of the population is against the U.S. missiles. Over half the population is for a neutral West Germany. The overwhelming majority of the population sees the fight against unemployment as the main issue.
"But this government will do nothing against unemployment. The stock market zoomed up, of course, on March 7. But to the extent that new investments are made, they will mainly rationalize jobs away.
"Within a year there will be 3 million unemployed. In six months, new U.S. missiles will be brought in. The majority of the population does not want that. This government was elected only because there was no socialist alternative • and because the Greens offered only a partial program."
In conclusion, the GIM declaration stated:
"March 6 was a defeat for the workers movement and the left. . . . Wecannot underestimate the effects of this on the social relationship of forces. The bourgeois bloc is determined to inflict severe defeats on the workers movement and the peace movement. The stationing of the missiles at the end of the year and the labor contract negotiations, involving the demand for a 35-hour work week, may be the key battles. But it would be wrong to concentrate only on these three "big' questions.
"The offensives of the right always look for weak points. So, the first targets could be the foreign workers and the right to abortion.
"All these battles are ahead of us. They were not decided by March 6. Social Democrats, Greens, and socialists must fight together against the missiles, unemployment, and the social budget cuts."