News analysis
German railways
Disoccupy Stuttgart
Nov 29th 2011, 17:01 by B.U. | BERLIN
ON SUNDAY the citizens of the German state of Baden-Württemberg rose up and… said yes to a rail project their government had endorsed 19 years ago. What is particularly striking about the result of the referendum on Stuttgart 21, a €4.1 billion ($5.5 billion) plan to put the city’s rail traffic underground and reclaim space for commerce, housing and parkland, is that it seems to contradict the people-versus-power mood of the moment.
Protesters have been gathering outside Stuttgart’s main rail terminus at least once a week since 2009, with crowds often swelling to thousands. They damn the project for uprooting trees, destroying underground springs and wasting money. In elections last March, they helped end more than a half-century of conservative rule in Baden-Württemberg, one of Germany’s most prosperous states. The Green party, which is against the project, assumed power at state level for the first time.
But the Greens are as keen on direct democracy as they are on conservation. Their coalition partners in the state, the Social Democrats, want the project built. Hence the referendum. On Sunday nearly 59% of Baden-Württembergers who voted backed Stuttgart 21, which is supposed to speed rail traffic through Germany’s industrial heartland. The plan is to finish construction by 2019.
It is not the verdict itself but its decisiveness that is surprising. Many thought that the “no” vote might win but that turnout would not be high enough to make the result binding. Instead, there was a strong vote in favour of the project and turnout was a healthy 48.3%. In Stuttgart itself two thirds of the electorate turned out to vote and a majority endorsed the project.
This tells Germans two things worth knowing. The first is not to overestimate the influence of the Wutbürger—irate citizens whose grievances against what they consider to be a political system that stands aloof from ordinary folk helped shape the political conversation in Germany even before the Occupy movements got going.
Stuttgart 21 seemed to be a prime example of a big disruptive project waved through by the authorities with little transparency and scant concern for the citizens affected by it. That may well have been the case. But the referendum shows that the Wutbürger do not speak for everyone. Their demands for greater participation may have more popular resonance than their positions on particular issues.
The second lesson is that there is a constituency for what looks like economic progress, at least in Germany's prosperous south. Germans are quick to mobilise against nuclear power, genetically modified foods, transmission lines and anything else that seems threatening to nature or just ugly. Politicians have been trying to work out how to win acceptance for such projects, a task that has become more urgent since Germany decided to abandon nuclear power and speed up the rollout of renewable energy earlier this year. The government insists that voices in favour of infrastructure matter as much as those of the resisters. The Baden-Württemberg referendum is evidence in its favour.
Germany will not now suddenly adopt the Swiss custom of putting everything to a popular vote. The last national referendum was held by Hitler, in 1938. But the Baden-Württemberg vote suggests that there are ways to overcome estrangement between citizens and government. Die-hard foes of Stuttgart 21 will not give up. But their claims to embody the will of the people—unlike those of the Wall Street occupiers and their progeny—have now been proved wrong.
In this blog, our correspondents respond to breaking news stories and provide comment and analysis. The blog takes its name from newsbooks, the 16th- and 17th-century precursors to newspapers, which covered battles, disasters, debates and sensational trials
Advertisement
- Analects | China
- Americas view | The Americas
- Babbage | Science and technology
- Bagehot's notebook | British politics
- Banyan | Asia
- Baobab | Africa
- Blighty | Britain
- Buttonwood's notebook | Financial markets
- Charlemagne's notebook | European politics
- Clausewitz | Defence, security and diplomacy
- Democracy in America | American politics
- Eastern approaches | Ex-communist Europe
- Elysée | France’s presidential election
- Free exchange | Economics
- Game theory | Sports
- Graphic detail | Charts, maps and infographics
- Gulliver | Business travel
- Johnson | Language
- Leviathan | Public policy
- Lexington's notebook | American politics
- Newsbook | News analysis
- Prospero | Books, arts and culture
- Schumpeter | Business and management
Most commented
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Foreigners in China: Barbarians at the gate, again
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- Russia and NATO: Rethink the reset
- Gay marriage: North Carolina begs the question too
- Nationalism online: Backfired
- Turkey’s cultural ambitions: Of marbles and men
- Politics and private equity: Bringing the Bain
- India-China relations and the media: Blame the messenger
- Greece and the euro: Exodus, chapter 1
Over the past five days
Most recommended
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Greek politics: Slouching towards the drachma
- Foreigners in China: Barbarians at the gate, again
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- The euro crisis: Going, going, gone?
- Jacob Zuma: Portrait of a president
- Rival versions of capitalism: The endangered public company
- Bo Xilai v Chen Guangcheng: Who is the mightier?
- Facebook goes public: Not top of the pops
- France and Germany: The Frangela show
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
Hi,
Dis occupy Stuttgart. Baden-Württemberg third largest in both area and population in Germany have decided to build an over dimensioned station which will spring the building budget by an anatomical amount, making as much sense as a canal between the Necker and the Rhine. As being Swiss I know referendums are a weakness of democracy. I've experienced referendums on putting the clock back, throwing the foreigners out, sacking the vicar, laying the water pipes and more. Stuttgart-21 will change the landscape of Stuttgart which directly concerns the people of Stuttgart. The referendum diluted the vote by taking the whole Baden-Württemberg. Problems are planned the station could become a social ghetto as many German railway stations are.
Regards Terence Hale
Terence,
“I know referendums are a weakness of democracy”.
Why don’t you start a petition to abolish direct democracy, then? And, it seems difficult how a country with referendums, is a Democracy, as opposed to a "representative government" - where the actions of an agent are separate to that of the principal.
“an over dimensioned station”
Really? By which epistemological, universally self-evident criteria is it “over dimensioned” (whatever that means). Or is that just your individual opinion?
“sacking the vicar”
Well, I’d do the same if he is misappropriating funds, touching my children in an inappropriate way, or whatever. A vital prerogative indeed.
“I've experienced referendums on putting the clock back, throwing the foreigners out...laying the water pipes and more”.
To my understanding every attempt to cap immigration (as a percentage of the total population) has failed, and the automatic deportation initiative... well if you moved to Denmark it would not help as their Parliament passed exactly the same law (actually, there law is far more stricter as you have to prove “with certainty” the deportation with run afoul of jus cogens).
If you have a problem with water pipes or are concerned that trees are more important than the infrastructure of a local community, start up an initiative to fix it. It just also happens that Munich and most of Switzerland rank the best in the world for quality of life in its cities and regions.
People who claim to speak for the entire population (the "Fuhrer principle") speak for no one but for themselves. Reminds me a bit like The Economist, really... and its dogmatic assertion that the people should not be denied the right to choose which system of government THEY want for THEIR country.
Indeed, for a second there I thought The Paternalist had something good to say about direct democracy when I read "But the referendum shows that the Wutbürger do not speak for everyone. Their demands for greater participation may have more popular resonance than their positions on particular issues" and "the Baden-Württemberg vote suggests that there are ways to overcome estrangement between citizens and government. Die-hard foes of Stuttgart 21 will not give up. But their claims to embody the will of the people—unlike those of the Wall Street occupiers and their progeny—have now been proved wrong".
BUT it had to ruin it by adding this gem: "...The last national referendum was held by Hitler, in 1938". Really, was that reference necessary? (I'm sure Stephen Morris will step in and remind us of the free and fair Hitler "referendums"). Anyways, if it is, I think it would be fair to say if Germany were like Switzerland (decentralized and no need for maniac career politicians' as the people are The Sovereign) , I doubt they would even have had a Hitler, thank you very much.
Germany is an excellent example of direct democracy in action. Unlike California, German direct democracy allows for a) counter-proposals; b) intense Parliamentary debate and discussion; c) well they are Germans, not Americans. Enough said.
Here are plans to introduce it nationally: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKlxK2h_WXs&feature=player_embedded#at=41
http://www.mehr-demokratie.de/deutschland-volksbegehren-bisher.html
http://www.mehr-demokratie.de/bb-datenbank.html [In fact, locally Bavaria and a few other states have had over 2000 referendums, and in some cases are just, if not more, avid users of direct democracy as the Swiss - the thresholds are somewhat harsh on a state level so that is why they have had about half a dozen initiatives on a state wide level]
And the third lesson is that money can buy opinion. There was a lot more and better advertisement for S21, because it is backed by parties that can afford them.
Fourth lessen: Fear manipulates people. The Pro-S21 "propaganda" used a lot of fear mongering. (at least more than the other side did)
I'm not saying that S21 shouldn't be built, but these tactics still sticked out and show how easily manipulable the current democratic system is.
Firstly, what evidence is that that money "buys" opinion, rather than informs preferences? For example, I might have some sympathy with the environment, but I'd PREFER an efficient transport system. I'd probably vote that way. If one advertises the latter, it is simply reinforcing my *prima facie* first order preference [we can see this in California where often even before money is spent people have generally made up their mind one way or the other - you are not going to persuade people that tobacco is good for you no matter how much advertising you put out!]. In this case, "the government insists that voices ******in favour of infrastructure***...as much as those of the resisters."
Secondly, what evidence is there that "fear manipulates people" and even if it does, is it not better to be safe rather than sorry? And what sort of "propaganda" is there: the fact you point out its such and argue its propaganda allows people to see through bullshit. Their preferences might agree with you. Indeed, it seems to me the more EMOTIONAL and dramatic side here lost: "...They damn the project for uprooting trees, destroying underground springs and wasting money". Heavy stuff. It must have hurt the trees.
What evidence is there that people were manipulated? Is this just another way of saying "I lost, so I am going to accuse everyone as being stupid and governed by powerful interests". It also just happens "one of Germany’s most prosperous states" (Baden-Württemberg), plus Hamburg and Bavaria are avid users of the initiative. Apparently, the result of evil manipulation.
"But the Greens are as keen on direct democracy as they are on conservation."
The point being that public has the largest vested interest in their lives and environment.
The major point of OWS is exactly that, not that those protesting are exactly representitve of all views.
The political system in the US infantilizes the public. Oddly enough having responsibility allows one to be responsible.
"Die-hard foes of Stuttgart 21 will not give up."
You are unfortunately right, however their moral claim has dropped quite few notches.
The silent majority trumps the noisy minority.
It is because of technological limitations that direct democracy hasn't been viable for large nation states.
This is changing.
With online debate forums, mass public video conferencing, live online polling, etc, it will soon be possible quickly ascertain the general public sentiment on any matter.
It is also possible to fully publish in real time all government accounts, all forecasts and reports, all contracting/ recruitment information, all laws and their justification, and all new laws under proposal/ drafting.
And, with further development, one can imagine the institutional transfer of many powers: from our dear representatives, back down to the people.
There needs to be far more experimentation in this vein. But what self serving politician would make such concessions?
It is because of technological limitations that direct democracy hasn't been viable for large nation states.
This is changing.
With online debate forums, mass public video conferencing, live online polling, etc, it will soon be possible quickly ascertain the general public sentiment on any matter.
It is also possible to fully publish in real time all government accounts, all forecasts and reports, all contracting/ recruitment information, all laws and their justification, and all new laws under proposal/ drafting.
And, with further development, one can imagine the institutional transfer of many powers: from our dear representatives, back down to the people.
There needs to be far more experimentation in this vein. But what self serving politician would make such concessions?
While I am in do doubt that self-serving politicians exist, and that we may currently have a glut of them, I often think people take self-serving to mean something that is not in their individual interest. Having the tools and being able to use them correctly are two entirely different notions. I'm not sure in our current state we have the practical, emotional and intellectual capacities as a society to make collective decisions that work in our best interests. There is plenty of analytical Marxists who would argue that capitalism is the cause of this, and with the world as it is, credit-loaded and facing down environmental disaster and yet we continue to search for easy answers, whether you entirely agree with them is a moot point, they're certainly getting at something.
And, of course, to avoid falling into logically indefensible a priori privileging if people think that these "tools" should be abolished, then let them abolish democracy. However, I hear the German people want MORE democracy, not less.
"practical, emotional and intellectual capacities as a society to make collective decisions that work in our best interests"
Really? Why not? We should bring Der Fuhrer back! He knows what is in the best interest of the Deutsche Volk! I really can't tell whether I prefer efficient transport over environment (which option is self-evidentially the one working in our best interest?), decentralized government expenditure over more central control (which option is self-evidentially the one working in our best interest?), strawberry or banana, glow in the dark condoms (which option is self-evidentially the one working in our best interest?) Depends whether I can see where I am putting it.
It seems the same Paternalistic mind set in California has now moved to Germany - they German people are apparently "stupid", "not intelligent enough", "manipulated". Oh dear, oh dear.