The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

What are the CDU Promising this Election?

Leading polls, their election manifesto promises tax cuts, more deportations, militarisation and undoing both the Selbsbestimmunggesetz and citizenship reforms


22/12/2024

On December 17th, the so-called “Union” of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Bavaria-based Christian Social Union (CSU) released their joint 80 page election manifesto, “Political Change for Germany”. Its contents are especially relevant since the Union, and thereby the CDU as leading partner, is well ahead of its competitors in current polling. The CDU will likely be an indispensable and leading partner in the next coalition to form the German government, following the February 23rd national elections.

The CDU ran Germany’s government for 16 years under Angela Merkel, before their main historical rival the SPD took over under Olaf Scholz. Scholz’s popularity has plummeted through his first term, and the SPD is currently polling in third place behind the AfD.

The CDU’s new leader Friedrich Merz will require a coalition partner though. Since the CDU is unwilling to work with the far-right AfD, they will look elsewhere. The neo-liberal FDP is a natural ally here, but they had a disappointing time in the current Ampel regime and a scandal and drama-filled exit. The FDP’s ability to even crack the 5% threshold required to make it into the Bundestag is in question. 

This has led to the somewhat ironic possibility of allying with the ever-rightward shifting Grüne, who Merz has recently claimed holds a similar foreign policy to his party. Should the Greens not get enough seats, a “Black and Red” coalition with the SPD may be necessary, albeit awkward.

Merz is himself an interesting figure, a clear careerist politician who held a long-time dislike for Merkel after she demoted him in 2002. In his recent speech to the party he claimed he would have been satisfied as a “simple Bundestag member” (einfacher abgeordnete), despite the fact that he became leader of the party only upon his third time running for the position. 

Merz has been critiqued for his position on women. He mostly speaks of violence against women in relation to racialised migrants; and critiques the current government’s promotion of women to high roles he considers them unqualified for. With a pseudo-feminist spin he explains that these promotions “aren’t doing women any favours either.” 

Now, seemingly on his way to leading the German government, the CDU’s election programme lays out what Merz hopes to achieve when he finally becomes chancellor. It makes it clear that a CDU election victory would see austerity through tax cuts, increased militarisation, and serious steps backwards for social issues.

Austerity and Neoliberalism

The CDU previously made clear its intention to maintain a balanced budget through the so-called debt-brake. As Der Spiegel has reported, this would be difficult considering their plans to cut taxes and increase military spending. To achieve this, the CDU’s election programme has social cuts and other forms of austerity scattered throughout it, justified through claims of ‘increasing efficiency’.

One example is eliminating the current Bürgergeld system (social benefits), and building something new in its place. This comes after recent reforms to replace Hartz IV with Bürgergeld. The CDU’s plans are vague, and do not state what the replacement would be, only that “Wer arbeiten kann, muss auch arbeiten” (who can work, must work), and that they intend to increase support for job centres.

The programme also announces a so-called ‘modernisation’ of working hours. Germany currently has strict limits preventing workers from working more than 8 hours a day, or 48 hours a week (with some exceptions for overtime, etc), but the CDU wants to get rid of the daily limit. This would allow employers increased flexibility to overwork their employees.

They will also overturn the recent Lieferkettengesetz (supply chain law) which sought to limit human rights violations used in the production of goods bought in Germany. The law was the result of intense campaigning, and only passed in 2021.

On several points, the CDU expresses its support for the status quo, seemingly hoping to put fears aside. One is their promise to maintain Germany’s current retirement age of 66 years old. More problematic is healthcare. While many will likely breathe a sigh of relief that no cuts appear to be coming, maintaining the status quo while nurses have been striking for better conditions is hardly a generous promise.

Perhaps the most ridiculous proposal the CDU has for saving money is at universities, where they suggest that campuses rent out their equipment for a profit. Beyond the logistical headache of such a proposal, the idea undermines the very idea of a university based on public good, taking ongoing privatisation to a new level. 

In the realm of housing, the CDU recognises that they have something of a crisis. Rather than take on predatory landlords or building social housing, they call for increased privately-financed housing construction. To this effect, they will reduce the regulations for construction of new buildings. While they claim to want to do so responsibly, the echoes of Grenfell Tower in London are noticeable. Reducing regulations will likely lead to the construction of dangerous buildings, to be filled primarily by low income families.

Tax Cuts

The other side of the CDU’s austerity measures is their proposed tax cuts. While they explicitly state they want to lower Germany’s corporate tax, they also often use tax cuts to replace greater investments.

Housing is an example of this. Rather than investing in social housing or similar measures, the CDU promises tax benefits for landlords who charge below average rent in a locality. This clearly benefits the landlord rather than the renter, and actively encourages slum lords. Rather than creating decent housing, the faceless corporation or distant business man will save money on their run-down apartment block, just because it’s in a nice neighbourhood.

A similar approach is taken to Kitas (daycares). Rather than increasing funding, or improving social services to support children and parents in precarious situations, they offer tax cuts for Kitas themselves and for single parents. Considering daycares are already understaffed to the point of calling unlimited strikes, which were in turn banned by a court, tax cuts are no replacement for major reinvestments.

Finally, the CDU wants to cut the Solidaritätszuschlag, a tax which essentially serves to redistribute money from the richest states towards the poorest. The FDP tried to get rid of this for a while, as did the CSU based in Bayern, a rich state which pays large amounts through the tax.

Saving the Climate Through the Free Market

Other austerity measures are masked as necessary for protecting the environment. The CDU recognises the importance of the Paris Agreement, and the need to move away from coal. Their strategy for climate protection is best summarised in their own words: “mehr Markt, weniger Staat” (more market, less state). They claim that allowing the free market to compete for the cheapest energy will help the climate, as if that isn’t the very system which destroyed our planet. Predictably, this means cutting taxes.

The election platform says it will reduce taxes on electricity. Since much of Germany’s electricity is produced by coal, it is unclear exactly how this will help the environment. Likewise, while they want to make transport cheaper, their actual proposal includes reducing CO2 costs, not exactly as climate-friendly as, say, investing in better public transportation.

The CDU also states its intention to increase the use of nuclear energy, something the German climate movement has fought against for decades. Likewise, they support the use of carbon trading, another free-market supposed solution to the climate crisis. Finally, reminiscent of the Berlin CDU’s latest election campaign, the federal party also wants to protect the auto industry and car users.

Militarisation

When we turn to its plans for the Bundeswehr, the CDU’s austerity plans suddenly puff into smoke. Merz has reportedly been jealous of Scholz’s work remilitarising Germany, and wants to take the mantle on himself. The CDU plans to increase the army’s personnel from 180,000 soldiers to 203,000, as well as instituting more public oaths and other forms of support for German soldiers.

While their programme doesn’t make concrete budget suggestions, it’s clear they want to spend more as well. While NATO demands its member states spend 2% of their national GDP on the military, the CDU states this is a lower limit of how much they will spend.

The CDU also points to a slow implementation of some sort of conscription, although again details are vague. They want to implement a year of community service alongside military conscription, and appear to be planning on reimplementing the German system in place until 2011. Then 18 year olds would have a choice of serving in the military or some sort of social service.

Other military proposals include the CDU’s support for the stationing of American long-range weapons in Germany.

Abortion and Queer Rights

Despite assurances they want to protect women when talking about ‘Islamists’, when it comes to abortion rights the CDU drop this protective role. They make their position clear in stating their full support of the Paragraph 218, which makes abortion a criminal offense, despite some leeway in practice. 

They justify this by claiming that 218 was the product of a long negotiation between different parts of society, when in reality the law is a relic from the year 1871. Maintaining Paragraph 218 would continue the current situation of heavily limited access and restrictions for abortion.

The CDU’s proposal for trans rights is also bleak. Their programme openly states an intent to revoke the Selbsbestimmungsgesetz (self-determination law), which made the limited improvement that people could change their name and gender at the registration office without a letter from a mental health professional. 

Perhaps more dangerous than the revocation itself, they justify their stance (rooted in the party’s right-wing Christian roots) by drawing on the far-right narrative that queer rights are somehow a threat to children. The section revoking the Selbsbestimmungsgesetz is titled “Protecting kids and youth instead of identity politics”, and discusses the “volatile period of puberty”. It is hard to see this as anything other than a far-right dog whistle.

They also state that a Zweitberatung (second consultation) is required before adults change their gender. There are already swathes of medical documents needed, including documentation showing at least eighteen months of therapy. Seemingly, the CDU states that on top of these eighteen months a second medical professional’s opinion is needed, adding to the needed legal and medical loopholes for affirmation.

Recht und Ordnung

In the section titled ‘law and order’, their election programme rolls back other recent liberal changes. To begin, they state that they want to revoke the Ampel’s limited legalisation of cannabis, claiming that it protects dealers and puts kids in danger.

Likewise, the partial victories which activists secured in mandating police to portray identification numbers, will also be undone. They also plan to revoke the requirement for police to show identification when asked. This gives police officers increased ability to remain anonymous and unidentifiable when they commit crimes and abuses.

There is also a tech-bro aspect to the CDU’s programme on Artificial Intelligence, demanding it be given bureaucracy-free space for innovation. Clearly, they want to make Germany into some sort of tech capital, and they hope to be able to rely on private capital to do so.

They point to AI’s potential in Germany’s Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik (Government Ministry for Security and Information Technology, BSI). While they want to increase the power of the BSI, even giving it an influence similar to the Verfassungsschutz (internal security), they also want to automate its data analysis through AI. Considering the regular scandals regarding AI’s racism, it doesn’t take much imagination to predict the effects of such a move.

Citizenship and Visa Reforms

The CDU intends to revoke the Ampel’s citizenship reforms. This would mean longer waiting times before people can apply for German citizenship, and revoking the possibility of keeping a second passport after receiving a German one. It is unclear whether they would also make it more difficult for people seeking permanent residency, or undo some of the new forms of visa which the Ampel introduced. 

Key for the CDU is that integration comes before someone receives citizenship. This is their justification for reintroducing longer waiting times for German citizenship.It also leads them to stress that people must have a high level of German in order to receive citizenship. It is unclear what exactly they consider to be a ‘high level’.

The CDU also plans on implementing the recognition of Israel’s Existenzrecht (right to exist) as a precondition for receiving German citizenship, in line with the Staatsraison. While this has been implemented in some states already, the CDU would apply this across the country.

For people with dual citizenship and those living in Germany with Aufenthaltstitels (residency permits), the CDU plans on introducing new ways for these rights to be stripped (removing citizenship from people without a second passport is much more difficult, legally speaking). Those accused of supporting terrorist organisations or threatening the democratic order, both accusations often thrown at left-wing groups, could lose their right to live in Germany. Added to this, anyone seen to be pushing for an ‘Islamic state’ could also see dual citizenships or Aufenthaltstitels revoked.

The CDU would also include antisemitic criminal offences, this likely includes Volksverhetzung charges (which protesters often receive at Palestine-solidarity demonstrations) as grounds for deportations. Even people claiming asylum could be deported for such charges, they claim.

Migration and Borders

Unsurprisingly, Merz’s CDU distances itself from Merkel’s welcome of Syrian refugees in 2015. They propose multiple ways to  militarise Germany’s borders and prevent people from entering the country, including by ending family reunifications, and increasing deportations of those already here.

At the German border, the CDU states its intention to maintain border checks in place indefinitely. For the EU borders, the party states that it wants to give more personnel and power to Frontex, the corporation responsible for drones which gather information to support the use of pushbacks in the Mediterranean. 

Further, they plan to assigning Frontex the responsibility of ‘protecting’ sections of the border, giving them ‘territorial authority’ (hoheitliche Befugnisse). The exact implications of this are unclear, but clearly mark an increase in power for Frontex. It makes them legally accountable and further limits the already low possibility for legal challenges to abusive practices.

Another change the programme plans is that people facing deportation orders would be held by the Bundespolizei until their deportation. Beyond the inhumanity of imprisoning people simply for seeking safety, tactics of physically delaying deportations often win crucial time for migration lawyers to collect and submit documents which prove that their clients have the right to stay in the country. But streamlining the process of deportations, the CDU would eliminate checks and balances lawyers can use to support people.

The CDU would also follow the Ampel in deporting people to Afghanistan, and states it would deport people to Syria as well. The programme names the need to identify more ‘safe countries of origin’, i.e. countries deemed safe enough that those who fled from there to Germany could be legally returned. The process of ‘identifying’ more countries doesn’t mean better research, but simply lowering the standards of what is considered a ‘safe country’.

Further, the CDU calls for an EU-level reform to allow for the creation of third state holding centres. This mirrors the Tory party plans in the UK to send people to Rwanda, and Meloni in Italy’s plan to send people to holding sites in Albania. Both these attempts faced court challenges, and the CDU seemingly intends to side-step this issue by simply changing the laws. Exactly where Germany would send people is unclear, but they imply somewhere outside of Europe.

Differentiated Treatment of Religions

While advocating for an ‘Islamic state’ would be reason enough to strip citizenship, the party sees itself as protecting Christian holidays and Sonntagsruhe (Sunday Calm). It is the Christian Democratic Union, after all. There are also noteworthy differences with how the party refers to discrimination towards different groups in its programme.

Antisemitism gets several detailed paragraphs of denunciations and statements of intent. But there is no mention of the CSU’s willingness to work with someone who carried antisemitic pamphlets around during his youth. These paragraphs are then followed up by a single paragraph about repression of Muslims. The word Islamophobia is not used throughout the document, but is most noticeably absent here. The closest they get is stating “Wir dulden keine Abwertung von Muslimen” (We tolerate no degredation of Muslims).

Yet when it comes time to speak about ‘Islamism’, the CDU’s programme makes up for its earlier lack of attention. They plan on shutting down mosques deemed to preach hate or antisemitism, thereby increasing the policing of Islamic institutions. They also wish to restart the government’s expert group on ‘political Islam’. It is perhaps unsurprising that they don’t plan on starting an expert group on ‘political Judaism’, although it could be argued that the CDU is by definition an expression of ‘political Christianity’.

Its plans for fighting antisemitism unsurprisingly focus on protecting Israel instead of Jews in Germany. They plan on making denial of the ‘Existenzrecht’ of Israel criminally punishable, since it is part of Germany’s Staatsraison. The authoritarian undertones are apparently justified in the fight against Israelhass

The controversial IHRA definition also plays an important role in their plans. The definition was recently the subject of protests in Berlin when the local CDU sought to force cultural and artistic workers to sign on to the definition to receive state funding. Now at the federal level, the CDU is proposing making all civil society organisations recognise both Israel’s Existenzrecht and the IHRA definition in order to receive state funding. While the attack on the arts in Berlin failed, they will now be redirected towards all civil society groups across the country.

Conclusion

The wide-ranging effects that the CDU programme would have on German society if implemented are frightening and cause for anger. There is a chance that they would be moderated if the party was forced to form a coalition with the SPD to form a government. However, considering how difficult the CDU has found it to differentiate its policies from the current regime, it is hard to imagine any major effect.

Should basic rights and recent victories be protected — whether the Selbsbestimmungsgesetz or right of asylum — any CDU-led government will need to be widely opposed. These immediate and urgent aspects are important. As crucial is opposing the austerity measures which would strip safe housing and continue to slowly destroy Germany’s hospitals and Kitas, not to mention reduced building regulations putting families at risk for generations to come. There is plenty of work for the Left to do.

Munich Academics – it’s not too late to do your duty and refuse complicity in war crimes

Open Letter from Academics for Justice


21/12/2024

We are Munich Academics for Palestine, a group of scholars from various research institutes (including the LMU, TUM, Helmholtz and the Max Planck Society) who have organized to advocate for an immediate and permanent end to the aggression in Gaza. We recognize that research is an inherently political act, and that our work and the decisions of our academic institutions have far-reaching consequences that either benefit or harm society. As such, it is our obligation to speak about the humanitarian crises unfolding in Gaza over the last twelve months, destroying the entirety of the Gazan educational system and claiming 186,000 Palestinian lives. We strongly condemn the complicity and hypocrisy of German academic institutions, who have failed to uphold their values of freedom of speech and academic expression, instead punishing academics who publicly expressed their solidarity with the Palestinian cause, and who have failed to support their Palestinian employees during the ongoing aggression. Finally, we call on Bavarian academic institutions to strongly oppose recently passed legislation that forces academic institutions to cooperate with the German military and NATO, which could result in our research being used to advance the destruction of lives and environment around the world.

Our demands

  • We call on our institutions to stand by their humanistic vocation and condemn violations of international law committed by Israel in Palestine and Lebanon.
  • Immediate cessation of all research collaborations with Israeli universities and research institutions associated with the Israeli military.
  • Furthermore, investigation of all research partnerships with the military-industrial complex and discontinue those found to violate international law and human rights.
  • We call on our research institutions to oppose forceful cooperation with the German military, as recently adopted in the “Gesetz zur Förderung der Bundeswehr in Bayern,” and implement a civil clause instead.
  • We ask for our institutions to implement positive actions for displaced Palestinian and Lebanese researchers and students, such as scholarships/fellowships, visa support, preparatory courses, and psychological support, like those offered to students displaced through international conflict or natural disasters.

How this concerns us

We are currently witnessing a humanitarian crisis that, according to the medical journal The Lancet, has claimed up to 186,000 Palestinian lives in Gaza alone. Multiple respected international organizations, including Amnesty International and the United Nations, have been constantly advocating for a ceasefire, resulting in a UN resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in March 2024, which was ignored by Israel. The International Court of Justice ruled in July 2024 that Israel’s occupation, settlement expansion, and natural resource exploitation since 1967 violate international law and that the Palestinian territories are one political unit. The ICJ mandates that all states refrain from providing aid or assistance in perpetuating the situation resulting from Israel’s illegal presence in the occupied territories. This decision also found Israel guilty of apartheid. More recent UN reports detail the deliberate destruction of the Gazan healthcare system and use of sexual and other violence against detainees and conclude that it is plausible that Israel is committing a genocide. Despite these rulings, the German government has refused to halt its military support, and as the second largest weapons exporter to Israel, is continuing to profit from gross violations of human rights.

As members of the international academic community, we find one aspect of the current conflict particularly concerning. A study produced by the UN Commission of Inquiry states that with “more than 80% of schools in Gaza damaged or destroyed, it may be reasonable to ask if there is an intentional effort to comprehensively destroy the Palestinian education system, an action known as scholasticide”. Israeli shelling has destroyed more than 219 educational facilities in Gaza, killing more than 261 teachers, 95 university professors, and 5,479 students resulting in the fall of Gaza’s educational system completely. The utter devastation of Gaza’s school system means that both current and future Palestinian generations would be denied the right to an education, which violates both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the right to academic freedom.

German academia is complicit in restricting political expression

Similarly to the federal government, universities and research institutions across Germany are actively censoring and punishing scholars and students sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. This comes even though both academics and students supporting the Palestinian cause have been shown to be the “least antisemitic group in Germany”. Expressing solidarity with pro-Palestinian student groups and critiquing the Israeli government has resulted in scholars being suddenly fired, having professorial appointments revoked, and threatened with termination from leadership positions. These examples are reflective of the deep-seated hypocrisy of Germany’s research and higher education systems, where dedication to free expression is celebrated until it becomes politically inconvenient.

The bias, repression, and complicity of German academic institutions is also present in Munich. While the LMU, TUM, and Max Planck Society have affirmed their solidarity with the people of Israel and their continued cooperation with Israeli universities, they are silent in response to the unprecedented violence in Palestine and Lebanon. These institutions have proudly extended support to staff and students previously affected by international conflict or natural disasters, yet offer no similar accommodations to their Palestinian colleagues, and in fact have poured more resources into their collaborations in Israel, as opposed to multiple international academic institutions who have severed ties.

We are further shocked to see that none of the administrations of the Munich universities released a statement condemning the recent anti-Palestinian arson attack against students participating in the Palestine protest camp – an attack that could have resulted in serious injury or even casualties. While the student representatives of the LMU have condemned the attack, the LMU administration (or any other academic body) is yet to make a statement in support of their students. This unforgivable attack shows the growing hostility and violence that students at the encampment face, and we sincerely hope that the Munich universities will show their concern for the safety and well-being of their students.

Will YOUR research be militarized?

On 23 July 2024, the Bavarian government passed new legislation (“das Gesetz zur Förderung der Bundeswehr in Bayern”) which forces universities to cooperate with the German military and NATO. Strikingly, “tensions in Israel and Palestine” was cited as a reason for the law being needed, but it is unclear how forcing cooperation between Bavarian universities and the military will create any opportunity for peace, or positively improve the situation in Gaza and Lebanon in any way. Besides endangering the academic freedom of universities, which is anchored in the Basic Law (Article 5 Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law states: “Art and science, research and teaching are free. […]”) we see this law as a dangerous step which could implicate our work with the ongoing aggression in Gaza.

We further call on our research institutions to not only actively voice their opposition to the implementation of this legislation, but we ask Bavarian research institutions to implement a civil clause instead, ensuring that our research can and will only be used for the promotion of peace. Currently, over 70 universities in Germany have a so-called “Zivilklausel” (civil clause), a self-imposed commitment by academic institutions to conduct research exclusively for civil and peaceful purposes. This means that the university pledges not to engage in research activities or partnerships with entities related to the military or arms industry and includes rejecting third-party funding from such organizations. It is currently unknown if this new law will nullify existing civil clauses or revoke the right for academic institutions to enact a civil clause in the future.

The LMU, TUM, and MPG already have active collaborations with research partners of the Israeli military, as recently documented. We call on these organizations to immediately end these partnerships.

Conclusion

It is our responsibility as academics to address our research institutes and demand their support for an immediate ceasefire in Palestine and Lebanon. It is our responsibility as academics to ensure that our research does not engage in war crimes and human rights abuses. The international community must condemn the ongoing Scholasticide and defend the right to academic freedom, including a freedom of choice in whether our research can be used for military purposes. Only through solidarity and a clear commitment to peace and human rights can universities live up to their social responsibility.

Join us in resisting state-sanctioned complicity in scholasticide and human rights violations!

If you are ready to take action to oppose German academic complicity in war crimes, join our movement today. We organize both educational and action-oriented events for students, professors and staff members alike. Whether you’re well informed or have just read this letter and know that you can no longer stay silent, we have resources and a community for you. Click here to learn more and join (you can do so anonymously as well).

Not quite ready to join, but want to make a difference? Sign the petition

From South Africa to Syria

Rising perils for Palestine solidarity


20/12/2024

The sudden regime overthrow in Syria and the long-delayed opportunity to confront the legacy of Bashar al-Assad’s tyranny are either being celebrated or condemned, as explored below, but they come at a time that poses profound problems for solidarity with Palestine.

In Johannesburg, these problems are particularly acute given contradictions exposed last week. There was first, the South African government’s two-faced approach to Israel: condemnatory at The Hague, yet with President Cyril Ramaphosa apparently now backing away from anti-genocide ‘megaphone diplomacy,’ and allowing increased profiteering from local exports into Israel (coal especially, but also diamonds, grapes and even bullets). Second, and at the same moment, Ramaphosa took up formal leadership of the G20 group of wealthy and middle-income states, as the baton was passed from Brazilian President Lula Ignacio da Silva.

To signal the dangers associated with G20 fusion of imperial and sub-imperial economies, Ramaphosa began preparing to host the November 2025 Summit here in his primary hometown by obsequiously offering a state visit and round of golf to Donald Trump. Also underway this week are meetings between G20 finance ministry and central bank officials planning their 2025 reform agenda. Moreover, there is increasing clarity on G20 climate change policy, thanks to a refusal at the recent Baku UN climate summit by South Africa’s new white, rightwing environment minister, Dion George, to respect the African delegates’ critiques of Western climate finance offerings.

But before exploring such African fissures and G20 fusions on another occasion, two urgent challenges arise due first to Ramaphosa’s retreat from Palestine solidarity, and second to the fall of the half-century old rule of the Assad family on December 8th, followed by Moscow exile.

Pretoria enters the West Asian drama, this time stage right

A common concern in Johannesburg is that the reinsertion of Trumpism in coming weeks will hasten the genocide of Palestinians and erasure of their homelands, and further destabilise not only West Asia, but also amplify a long-lasting Washington-Pretoria-Tel Aviv relay in which mutual economic interests dominate. Beyond the historical function of the three states collaborating in 1970s-80s nuclear weapons technology, the relay dates most conspicuously, a decade ago, to Ramaphosa predecessor Jacob Zuma’s capitulation to Barack Obama and local South African Zionists during an earlier Gaza War.

A repeat performance is most worrying to progressives here, in large part because South Africa’s Richards Bay bulk minerals port has become – since August – the world’s main terminal for exporting coal to Israel, which depends on the Orot Rabin and Rutenberg power stations for nearly 20% of its energy grid.

It is to be expected that Trump will go on the offensive against the South African filing of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case against Israel. Trump is a proponent of Israel’s mass murder and illegal settlements, calling predecessor Joe Biden a “very bad Palestinian” during a debate last June, for not sufficiently helping Netanyahu to ‘finish the job’ in Gaza.

But instead of helping to build the global movement against Israel by highlighting Trump’s threats, Ramaphosa’s new Ambassador to Washington Ebrahim Rasool – formerly part of the ruling party’s leftwing currents – let slip in an interview this week: “We need to put away the [Palestine-solidarity] megaphone now. And the president’s words were, it is now sub judice… I understand the need to completely recalibrate… that’s the art of the deal. It is about framing the messages in particular ways that make South Africa an ally [of Trump].”

Some might be surprised at this betrayal, including Ramaphosa’s nonsensical sub judice posture. Yet beyond its important ideological advocacy megaphone used at the Hague international courts, the Pretoria government has barely lifted a finger for Palestine.

Backlash against Pretoria begins

The Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) strategy called for by the broadest-ever range of Palestinian civil society in 2005 peacefully addresses one of Israel’s major vulnerabilities: fossil-energy supply. Yet Ramaphosa’s brother-in-law Patrice Motsepe runs a major mining house that partners with Glencore, as did Ramaphosa himself until he became deputy president in 2014, and thus serves as the main co-supplier of coal to fuel Israel’s genocide of Palestine.

Activists insist on BDS, on ending diplomatic recognition of Israel, and on prosecution of South African mercenaries who illegally serve in the Israel Defense Force, but they are making virtually no progress.

Roshan Dadoo, the coordinator of the local Boycott Divestment Sanctions BDS Coalition, wrote in Amandla! magazine last week, “South Africa is increasingly being seen as hypocritical, as it does not follow through with implementing the findings of the ICJ… Government has certainly not taken all measures within its power. The Department of International Relations and Cooperation says that coal sales to Israel are a trade-related matter. The BDS Coalition Energy Embargo campaign has been trying to meet the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition, but with little success. A meeting was set up and then cancelled at the last minute, leaving activists frustrated.”

Reflecting that frustration, leading personalities associated with South Africa’s three main (often fractious) local progressive political traditions – which might be termed ‘multipolar’, ‘independent-internationalist’ and ‘liberal-constitutionalist’ – penned a strong open letter last week. It was signed by former Intelligence Minister Ronnie Kasrils, trade union leader Zwelinzima Vavi and anti-apartheid veteran Rev. Frank Chikane. They warned, “It looks increasingly like the South African government is reluctant to follow its own logic and uphold its legal obligations to isolate and sanction apartheid Israel.”

According to Kasrils, Vavi and Chikane, those obligations include following the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion ruling offered in July, to halt “aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” The vast majority of countries voting at the UN General Assembly in September (including South Africa) agreed with the ICJ, that the world must “prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel.”

Coal fuels genocide

But as Kasrils, Vavi and Chikane observe, coal mined especially by Swiss-based Glencore and its longest-standing Johannesburg partner since 2006, African Rainbow Minerals (ARM), is still being “supplied to Israel to generate electricity used to fuel genocide, the Israeli Occupation Forces, including production of military equipment, and maintaining the system of apartheid and illegal settlements.”

In spite of ICJ and UN mandates, trade minister Parks Tau claimed in parliament when asked about coal a few weeks ago, “Sanctions applied by one member against another in the absence of multilateral sanctions by the United Nations would violate the World Trade Organisation principle of non-discrimination and would open the country to legal challenge.” Tau’s specious argument results in his refusal to regulate a dangerous export, a commonly-used state tool.

Tau is not the only minister to ignore appeals to abide by the ICJ/UN mandate to disempower the Israeli genocidaires. Pretoria’s Transport Minister Barbara Creecy also refuses to answer BDS correspondence, though she is responsible for Transnet, whose “rail shipments and Richards Bay port facilitation subsidise the export of coal, which is a state-owned natural resource,” complain Kasrils, Vavi and Chikane.

Another guilty of dereliction is Environment Minister George, who last month co-chaired the climate mitigation committee of the UN climate summit in Azerbaijan (which is also the main supplier of oil to Israel). As Kasrils, Vavi and Chikane point out, over the past year, with a coal price “average of $110/ton, Glencore earns net profits of $40 for each ton of coal sold, what with production costs of $70/ton. Each ton burned creates 2.6 tons of CO2 emissions. The resulting ‘social cost of carbon’ is $1056/ton burned, resulting in a net negative impact of nearly $2-billion climate damage due to South African coal sold [to Israel] since October 2023. So, these coal shipments fuel both Israel’s genocide and the climate crisis.”

South Africa’s supply is increasingly vital to Israel, which currently relies on coal to power 17.5% of the electricity in its national grid. The last time fully-disaggregated UN Comtrade coal data were available, in 2021 (before Russia disguised its trade due to sanctions), Israel imported 6.5 million tons, of which 50% was Colombian, 36% Russian, 13% South African and 1% Turkish.

In 2023 Israel consumed 5.2 million tons. According to a June 2024 SPGlobal report, between January-May 2024, of 1.4 million tons, Colombia accounted for 60% and “other key suppliers included Russia with 247,500, South Africa at 169,200, the U.S. at 86,100 and China supplying 53,000.” In May 2024, Turkey imposed full trade sanctions on Israel, although dishonest shippers reroute exports. The maritime-data company Kpler issued South African BDS activists with new data in November for ships bringing coal to Israel’s Hadera and Ashdod coal ports, revealing that a Chinese firm has apparently resumed shipments, along with one from Australia.

Another data source, Vessel Tracker, revealed last week that Colombia didn’t conclusively halt coal shipments as anticipated in August, because on November 27 the Navios Felix took a load of coal – most likely from Glencore – to Hadera. The same ship was in Richards Bay on August 11 to load South African coal to Hadera, arriving on September 27, as its owner Navios Partners acknowledged how its fleet ships “for a broad range of high-quality counterparties, such as… Glencore.”

South Africa became Israel’s main coal supplier in August, overtaking Russia, with more shipments from September-November. Four shipments supplied Israel’s Hadera Port and Orot Rabin power station in recent weeks, each carrying 165,000 tons of South African coal. After the genocide began last October, at least seven ships have left Richards Bay carrying coal to Israel.

Glencore as coal-BDS target

As the world’s largest commodity trader, Switzerland-based Glencore offers no apologies or rationale. In May, at Glencore’s Annual General Meeting, one shareholder asked “if you’re conducting human rights assessments on the use of the coal you’re exporting to Israel to ensure that you’re not held liable”? Board Chairman Kalidas Madhavpeddi replied, “The company supplies to many countries around the world and it’s almost impossible to tell you the answer to your question.”

The shareholder followed up, “So you don’t check how the coal is being used?” Madhavpeddi replied: “Coal is used in power generation, that’s simple.” The two Johannesburg-born South African Glencore directors at the AGM, CEO Gary Nagle and Senior Independent Director Gill Marcus, were notably silent during the questioning.

In 2006, ARM Coal had been set up thanks to a $135 million loan to Motsepe from Glencore’s predecessor Xstrata, along with nearly half the firm’s investment capital. The deal was a major reason Motsepe vaulted to becoming South Africa’s richest black businessman. That year, Xstrata bragged of 13 million tons of coal exports from Richards Bay: “Outside of Europe, Israel was the largest purchaser of the South African operations’ coal production.”

Glencore acquired Xstrata in 2013 and inherited the relationship with Motsepe’s ARM Coal. Meanwhile in 2014, Ramaphosa sold his own Glencore-allied firm, Shanduka Coal, including a stake in the enormous Glencore-owned Optimum Mine whose board Ramaphosa chaired, becoming SA’s deputy president. As head of the Eskom ‘war room’ in 2014-15, Ramaphosa allegedly instructed the power utility to pay a price 3.5 times the former cost of optimum coal, with profits to Glencore.

Since its 1994 renaming from ‘Marc Rich & Co,’ Glencore has had a terrible reputation in Africa. Initial earnings had included apartheid-era sanctions busting for white South Africa. Its Congolese dealings with Israeli tycoon Dan Gertler continued until the latter’s 2018 blacklisting by the U.S. government. From 2018-22, Glencore was successfully prosecuted under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act for widespread bribery and corruption across Africa and Latin America, and paid $1.5 billion in fines. (Suspiciously, it has not been subject to prosecution in South Africa.)

Colombia’s Israel coal sales were typically 5% of recent exports, but in South Africa’s case the equivalent was usually lower than 1%, although that may rise to 2% in 2024. Earnings from these exports fluctuate with price and quantity: $101 million in 2021; $184 million in 2022; and $78 million in 2023. But the full costs of coal exports in terms of local pollution, greenhouse gas damage and depleted hydrocarbons, as well as labour, operating costs and environmental remediation are far higher than gross income.

Still, any worker or community adversely affected by BDS against Glencore and other coal mines prevented from selling to Israel, should in 2025 be first in line for compensation from $14 billion in SA’s Just Energy Transition funding.

Another demand was made to Glencore at an August 22 Johannesburg protest: pay reparations, just as Detroit-based General Motors did for profiteering in pre-1994 apartheid South Africa. All firms supporting Israeli genocide should now appreciate this risk.

More SA-Israel trade, perhaps including arms

Stopping coal sales to Israel is crucial but Pretoria also turns a blind eye to the lucrative diamonds and grape trade. And there are new concerns that a 50% upsurge of artillery ammunition being produced by SA parastatal arms firm Denel in a joint venture with German arms manufacturer Rheinmetall finds its way to Israel.

Moreover, both in Pretoria last month and in the U.S. state of Delaware’s bankruptcy courts in August, another weapons link was unveiled when Johannesburg native Ivor Ichikowitz declared that several divisions of his Paramount Group – Africa’s largest privately-held arms dealership – were unable to pay creditors. One of Ichikowitz’s bankruptcy protection requests was for Paramount Industrial Holdings, whose Johannesburg factory was subject to an anti-genocide protest in November 2023.

Meanwhile, Paramount South Africa – set up in 2018 to allegedly support ‘black economic empowerment,’ but mainly so as to gain access to SA military procurement contracts – is being accused by United Arab Emirates officials of merely asset-stripping intellectual property that is technically owed to Abu Dhabi Autonomous Systems Investments, following a London arbitration ruling against Ichikowitz.

In the process of Ichikowitz trying to escape a massive debt to the Emiratis’ drone-manufacturing parastatal, he disclosed not only a previously-reported ongoing joint venture with Elbit, but that the main Israeli arms company retains an address at Ichikowitz’s Johannesburg factory.

And Ichikowitz also revealed Paramount’s $725,000 debt to the Israel office of Cognyte Technologies, a spyware firm known previously as a component of Verint, which was prosecuted for corruption in the U.S. and criticised by Amnesty International for contributing to South Sudanese surveillance abuses. Cognyte is also under investigation by even the Israeli courts for providing technology to the Myanmar junta as it carried out a coup and massive civilian killings in early 2021.

Earlier this year, South Africa’s leading investigative journalists’ non-profit, Amabhungane, objected to the secretive nature of another of Ichikowitz’s divisions that went bankrupt: “by operating in low scrutiny jurisdictions, the Paramount group might have placed itself outside of the oversight structures in South Africa that restrict military trade. In addition, questions have been raised about the alleged funding of political interests ranging from South Africa’s ruling party to politicians abroad, and whether political connections have enabled the expansion of the company outside South Africa.”

For much of 2023, the Ichikowitz Family Foundation was indeed the single largest funder of Ramaphosa’s ruling party, the African National Congress. And later in the year, as the genocide got underway, the same foundation was a brazen, public supplier of tefillin (spiritual leather garb) to the Israel Defense Forces. As South Africa’s anti-genocide ICJ case began, Ichikowitz published articles in the Chicago Tribune and Fortune condemning the proceedings.

The Delaware court documents suggest the need for a relook by the Pretoria regulator supposedly monitoring such deals, the South African National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC). Several months ago, the notoriously lax NCACC lost a human rights case in local courts for approving an illegal Myanmar arms deal. The same committee had offered late-2023 denials that Ichikowitz and other local firms worked with the Israel Defense Forces, in spite of Ichikowitz’s mysterious Tel Aviv office and his tefillin supply to the genocidaires.

BDS must intensify

Could BDS help end the genocide and other IDF attacks? Kasrils, Vavi and Chikane conclude, “As South Africans, we know that sanctions in support of our liberation struggle played a vital role in bringing down the apartheid regime.”

Indeed 1985 when financial sanctions caused such a squeeze that President PW Botha declared a debt default, imposed exchange controls and shut the stock market. The response by business leaders was to visit Zambia to meet exiled black leaders, beginning the democratisation process, as whites fearful of further meltdown finally accepted ‘one person, one vote’ democracy.

But one reason activists suspect sanctions won’t be imposed unless pressure rises, is the role of Motsepe, a generous financial contributor to a range of local political parties. With a net worth estimate of nearly $3 billion, he is Johannesburg’s richest resident.

Motsepe is also the president of the Confederation of African Football and therefore, along with other Federation Internationale de Football Association executives, continues to delay suspension of Israel players from international fixtures, a demand made due to their extensive collusion in genocide and apartheid.

Will activists overcome Pretoria’s failures to impose sanctions, to cut diplomatic relations as was mandated by parliament in November 2023, and to prosecute young mercenaries who take their gap year after Herzlia and King David High School degrees to serve as paid IDF genocidaires?

A growing activist coalition will be needed. Dadoo notes that “South Africa’s largest trade union federation, the Congress of South African Unions, and its affiliate, the National Union of Mineworkers, support a ban on coal exports to Israel. So do environmental groups and social justice movements in the country.” Long gone are the days Ramaphosa organised a national strike as the National Union of Mineworkers leader, 37 years ago.

But links between the various movements are promising. On August 22 a protest at Glencore’s Johannesburg headquarters and Cape Town oil company branch, and again on October 8 when climate activists included a protest at the Ichikowitz Family Foundation office during an anti-fossils march – in part because of his role providing military ship and air support to protect Big Oil operating offshore Nigeria and Mozambique – and a leader of SA Jews for Palestine addressed the crowd.

Syrian chaos

Another factor that makes BDS work more important everywhere, is Syria’s new government. After pounding his citizenry with bombs and bullets since the Arab Spring arrived in Syria in March 2011, leaving more than 600,000 dead and six million exiled refugees, Bashar al-Assad had witnessed the carving of his country into a balkanised set of territories characterised by U.S., Russian, Turkish and Israel land and resource grabs.

The stunning 12-day military campaign coordinated by Türkiye-backed Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and its leader Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, began the day after Lebanon’s remaining Hezbollah leadership signed a dubious cease-fire with Benjamin Netanyahu’s regime, on November 27. On December 6, the Israel Defense Forces demolished the crossing from Lebanon to Syria to prevent Hezbollah from importing arms from Iran, but also to halt any Lebanese fighters’ defense of Assad against the rapid HTS advance into the capital city of Damascus.

This has provoked a series of reactions, including at least three dueling leftwing narratives, as usual distinguishing between an emphasis on top-down geopolitricks and bottom-up, social-struggle:

  1. A critique of the role of imperialist and sub-imperialist powers – especially Washington-Tel Aviv-Ankara – in a behind-the-curtain, ‘dirty war’ manipulation of HTS jihadis. This includes Mohammad Marandi’s account of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s and Joe Biden’s current de facto support for al-Qaeda extremists, or in Vijay Prashad’s summation that “Israeli bombardment of Syrian military facilities had weakened the Syrian armed forces’ logistical and ordinance capabilities… [and] attacks on Iranian supply depots and military facilities in Syria as well as the attacks by Israel on Iran had prevented any build up of Iranian forces to defend the Syrian government… conflict in Ukraine had certainly denied Syria the ability to call upon further Russian assistance… HTS has received aid and support from Turkey, but also covertly from Israel.”

  2. In contrast to manipulation, a recognition that for U.S. and Israeli military interests, as Gilbert Achar puts it, “the Assad regime and HTS are almost equally bad”. Instead, the explanatory emphasis is on sectarian religious infighting (which weakened the government army’s commitment to defend Assad’s terrain) plus degraded Iranian, Hezbollah and Russian support for Damascus, that together provided a gap for HTS. This leaves profound concerns that the extreme-Islamist values of HTS and allies, and oppression of secular democratic forces, mean very tough times ahead, including for the Rojava movement of progressive Kurds in northern Syria.

  3. A celebration of the role of popular will in overthrowing the brutal Assad, leaving us with a generally-progressive, bottom-up success story containing democratic and anti-patriarchal potentials, notwithstanding some dubious elements and threats of restored sectarian extremism. Included here are Moazzem Begg’s approving description of ecstatic Syrians who long suffered Assad’s totalitarianism and torture chambers, or in in Michal Karadjis’ interpretation that “The Syrian revolution returns with a bang,” and also in the liberal and feminist elements of the Free Syria movement.

Certainly each of the three perspectives contain a degree of truth, but just to disclose, my own far-away interpretation lies somewhere between the second (realist) and third (hopeful) arguments, while still recognising the fundamental truths of the first line of argument: U.S. imperial malevolence, Israeli regional sub-imperialism, and Turkish brutality to its southern neighbor’s citizenry.

The overarching point, though, is that waging a thirteen-year long set of diverse struggles by movements with so many fractured elements, means many dirty deals were (and are) done. For example, the Kurds of Rojava getting on-and-off protection from Washington while still managing to run a quasi-liberated zone deservedly famous for progressive advances in social ecology, feminism and municipal-socialist collaboration in the style of Murray Bookchin’s bottom-up confederalism.

At least, for the sake of clarity, Washington’s interests in having a 1,000-strong troop presence in Syria were not to support Rojava, no matter the Kurds’ importance in holding at bay extreme Islam’s armies. Instead, Trump made clear his reason for betraying Rojava by moving hundreds of U.S. army forces around the northeastern region in late 2019, when during a White House meeting he intoned to Erdoğan, “We want to worry about our things [sic]. We’re keeping the oil. We have the oil. The oil is secure. We left troops behind only for the oil.”

Although he is forever committed to resource grabs, Trump has more recently expressed nervousness about the 500 remaining U.S. troops being ‘caught in the middle,’ declaring to Robert F. Kennedy Jr that he wanted to pull them out. Meanwhile this week, the four remaining U.S. army bases in the northeast appear to be fully operational.

Also continuing at this stage, are the Russian military’s Tartus Mediterranean naval port and Khmeimim air base in western Syria. If the latter were to be shut, the ability of Moscow to intervene across Africa in various regional and local conflicts would be hampered, as the alternative for cargo war planes to refuel and reload would be unstable airports in Libya or Sudan.

As for Rojava, early indications are that the Kurdish liberation movement will defend their terrain, in spite of 100,000 refugees now fleeing violence. The Kurds are fighting the Syrian National Army – which violently captured the city of Manbij just after Damascus fell on Sunday – and are also repelling Erdoğan’s ongoing opportunistic attacks. Erdoğan would be furious if an independent Kurdish state emerges from the Rojava Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, because it would empower progressive Kurdish activists across West Asia, especially in Türkiye.

One Rojava statement celebrated Assad’s fall. Yet no one doubts the danger that a full-fledged collapse of Syrian central state power – and ultimately a far worse balkanisation and extremist Islamic state – may result from the turmoil. And for Syria’s masses, including Kurds and hundreds of thousands who do not yet dare return from exile, the need for solidarity could again become acute.

The different scenarios, Sam Husseini explains, are that “It’s possible that the US and other outside forces will decapitate Syria. And it’s possible that they will keep it technically whole but subservient. Or it’s possible that genuine freedom and dignity will assert themselves there and a new Syria will be a meaningful force for good.”

Hamas, meanwhile, congratulated “the brotherly Syrian people on their success in achieving their aspirations for freedom and justice. We call on all components of the Syrian people to unite, enhance national cohesion, and rise above the pains of the past… Hamas strongly condemns the repeated brutal aggression by the Zionist occupation against Syrian territories and firmly rejects any Zionist ambitions or schemes targeting brotherly Syria, its land and its people.”

The clarity which brave Palestinians provide the world reminds of the interrelationships between geopolitics, political economy and bottom-up solidarity – especially critical at a time when even the South African and Colombian governments are failing to meet reasonable expectations to help end genocide.

Germany’s Left Party Expels Palestinian Activist

Ahead of national elections, the Left Party is demonstrating its loyalty to German imperialism


17/12/2024

On Saturday, an arbitration panel of Die Linke voted unanimously to expel Ramsis Kilani. The Palestinian-German Trotskyist had been accused of “bringing the party into disrepute” by Martin Schirdewan (co-chair of the national party at the time, though he has since resigned) and Katina Schubert (former vice-chair). As I reported back in October, Die Linke’s leadership has been working together with right-wing media like Der Tagesspiegel to attack Palestine solidarity activists and leftists inside the party.

Kilani, a leading member of the group Sozialismus von Unten (Socialism from Below, SvU) and a prominent activist in Berlin’s Palestine solidarity movement, was expelled with immediate effect. The charges were based on snippets from social media distorted by right-wing journalists, too absurd to rehash here. Kilani constantly speaks at demonstrations and posts on social media — were there any evidence he was an antisemite or a Hamas supporter, it surely wouldn’t be hard to find. Instead, he publicly defends a secular, left-wing program of combining “unconditional support for all Palestinian resistance” with building “the working class’s self-organisation and power.” This would be pretty standard within almost any left-wing party internationally, but it is grounds for expulsion from Die Linke. 

The next day, the party’s top leadership discussed the case. As reported by Thies Gleiss, a majority declared they can’t get involved in arbitration cases — despite the fact that the whole process was started by then-members of the leadership. They refused any expression of solidarity with Kilani, which Gleiss called “a political scandal.”

Family Background

At the beginning of the hearing on Saturday, Schubert made reference to her own family’s Nazi background. She clarified by email that she had one grandfather who sympathized with the Nazis and one who was in opposition. She did not respond to a follow-up question about what this could possibly have to do with Kilani’s expulsion.

While this will sound strange to anyone outside Germany, this is what the German bourgeoisie tells working-class immigrants: “Because our grandparents committed genocide, you are now legally required to support the state of Israel.” After World War II, ruling-class ideology said that the entire nation was to blame for the capitalists’ crimes — a guilt that would be absolved via support for Israel. This leads to the descendants of Nazis demanding that everyone in the country support “Israel’s right to exist.”

Kilani’s family background could well be more relevant: his father, stepmother, and five half-sisters were murdered by Israeli bombs in Gaza in 2014. Even though five German citizens were killed, prosecutors refused to lift a finger to investigate.

In any case, politics are more than genealogy. Our family trees do not, by themselves, define our political programs. This is why Palestinians, Jews of different nationalities, immigrants from around the world, and even a few Germans can be found at Berlin’s Palestine solidarity demonstrations.

Staunchly Pro-Zionist

From far away, it might seem like Die Linke has a range of positions on the Middle East: one recent article describes a party with “anti-imperialists, pacifists, [and more than] a few supporters of Israel.” In reality, though, the leadership is steadfastly pro-Zionist. As party co-chair, Schirdewan spoke at a pro-Israel rally on October 22, 2023, after thousands of Palestinians had already been killed.

It’s noteworthy that the German bourgeoisie has tried again and again to show “solidarity with Israel” in the middle of Berlin, but even when hundreds of politicians, NGOs, and corporations have signed the calls, they have never been able to mobilize even 10,000 people — and sometimes just a few dozen. This is because the German government’s support for Israel is extremely unpopular. Polls show consistently that 60 to 70 percent of people oppose weapons shipments to Tel Aviv. In other words, Schirdewan was demonstrating his loyalty to the regime — and his disloyalty to his own members.

Meanwhile, in the state of Brandenburg, a politician from Die Linke serves as the official Antisemitism Czar. Andreas Büttner is a former member of the conservative CDU and then of the neoliberal FDP, as well as a former cop and a former businessman. It’s not clear how he ended up in a “left” party. On Twitter he claims there is “no genocide” in Gaza, contradicting Amnesty International as well as the UN, and that the Golan Heights “belong to Israel,” putting him to the right of the German government. Such far-right views are allowed in Die Linke, but left-wing ideas are not.

It is true that a few members of Die Linke express solidarity with Palestine, such as the local branch in the Berlin neighborhood of Neukölln. Yet these genuinely left-wing voices remain isolated in the party. While Kilani received lots of solidarity, including from Die Linke’s student organization, prominent party members have all ignored the case.

Independent Socialist Candidacies

Jacobin would have you think Die Linke has been taking a step back to the left, with new party co-chair Ines Schwerdtner (the founding editor of Jacobin Germany) addressing “specifically working-class interests.” Yet the expulsion of Kilani shows that Die Linke continues to defend bourgeois interests. The new leadership is largely trying to ignore the Middle East (“Don’t mention the war!”). For the upcoming elections on February 23, the party is instead betting everything on three older reformist politicians: Gregor Gysi, Dietmar Bartsch, and Bodo Ramelow, all three of whom support Israel. Bartsch, for example, voted in favor of banning left-wing Palestinian groups.

While Die Linke has won praise from right-wing media for the expulsion, it has been losing support from genuines socialists. The last year has seen an exodus by groups like SvU and Revolutionäre Linke (Revolutionary Left, RevoLi), both connected to the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in Great Britain. SvU just announced their definitive break from the Left Party. As Klasse Gegen Klasse, the sister site of Left Voice in Germany, we were always critical of revolutionaries working in this reformist party — for more than 15 years now. It is a positive step that they are leaving.

But it’s not enough to simply hand back their membership cards. Revolutionaries need to build a political alternative to Die Linke, based on class struggle and internationalism, with a strong focus on opposing the German government’s support for genocide. The upcoming elections offer an opportunity to present such a program to a wide audience. Revolutionary socialists are running so that anyone disappointed by Die Linke can support working-class, socialist candidates who stand steadfastly with Palestine. To SvU, RevoLI, and anyone else leaving Die Linke: let’s discuss how we can build such a campaign together.

A personal journey to A Case Against Voting

Whether in Ireland, Germany, or the US, I can’t find anyone worth voting for


16/12/2024

The three countries I have spent an extended time in during my adult life, the US, Ireland, and Germany, have just held, or are about to hold elections. This has caused me to reflect on the political journey I have gone on in a relatively short period of time. The person I was when I first became interested in politics would probably despise the person writing this. The political events and crises that have shaped my current views and caused the thought of voting for any of the candidates or parties on offer to seem a variation of unthinkable, unimportant or uninspiring to me now.

While there can be many motivations for voting, the one I was most exposed to and the idea I will be reacting to here is that it was a civic duty; one should vote to be able to engage properly in politics.

The first indignation I remember hearing at someone not being bothered to vote was a schoolteacher in Ireland raising her voice to highlight that men had died for our right to vote. However brutally delivered, this basic point makes sense in an idealised world. We live in a society, and voting for who represents your preferences in the state’s decision-making house is important, part of the social contract even. A social contract you had no decision in being a part of, but a contract nevertheless. What the other side has to do to break the contract is never explained. To have a meaningful political opinion, you must vote. No matter what you say about anything else. And if you don’t agree with the nature of this decision-making process?

In many ways, I represent the ideal politically-informed citizen. I talked about and was interested in politics from a young age. I followed them as if they were a football team. I read mainstream newspapers. I thought what the government was doing was interesting. I studied political science. I voted when I turned 18. People who did not follow politics asked me (and still do) who I thought would win an election.

After a while, I outgrew this. Some of this came naturally as I got tired the repetitiveness. But also, I realised I had lived through the world’s largest financial recession in 2008, the rise of the far-right, the Covid pandemic, the initiation of a major interstate war in Ukraine, and now the livestreaming of a genocide in Gaza. To see how consistently boring and predictable the politicians who I was supposed to admire were sparked a reaction in me.

After the 2008 financial crash, the Irish government subserviently implemented an EU austerity package that thinned out the state’s public services and sold other assets to the nearest bidder. The effects are seen today in the crippling housing crisis, resigning Ireland’s youth to an extended sentence in their childhood bedroom, while faceless international capital scoops up vacant properties for their portfolio. The obvious mistakes and oft-ignored greed of a few European bankers is rarely questioned, and quickly forgotten. The cause lies, of course, in oppressive power structures, an undemocratic EU, and the undermining forces of globalisation and financialization.

The rise of the far right in the USA and the UK should have been a wake-up call for those countries where their popularity was still fringe. Any attempt at locating the rise of fascism in economic conditions seems to have been left to fringe economists or historians, and instead the focus on personalities is the tactic of choice across the US, Ireland, and Germany. The limited worldview of all involved seems to have prevented any efforts at improving education, redistributing wealth, or addressing grievances. They have now taken to either name-calling the supporters of these figures or just adopting the fascist policies anyway. But this is democracy by majority rule. Parties don’t have to care about people who don’t vote for them in any serious manner. No wonder the main emotion of far-right voters is insecurity and fear of losing control over their lives. They don’t have much control.

The Covid pandemic was the real inflection point in my personal political liberation. This seemed to me like an obvious opportunity for societal self-reflection and accounting. However, the main focus of most governments was to get everything back up and running as quickly as possible. Back to the office. Back to exams. Back to airports. I was reminded so obviously of the economic inequalities that define our world by how impossible it was to deliver vaccines to the Global South. Token mentions of the need to vaccinate everyone were made at major international gatherings, but it would have taken measures of unprecedented scope for such a goal to be realised. These facts to me were indisputable evidence that things don’t work the way they should, and a protracted discussion on morality wasn’t necessary to determine that.

Then came the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. While this was obviously an aggressive act by an imperial power, the overreaction on the part of the States and the media I had grown sceptical of dumbfounded me. Sensing the opportunity to define an insecure European identity, politicians and media outlets competed for the honour of Most Outraged. The sheer preponderance of comparisons to Hitler and claims the invasion was “unprecedented” or “unprovoked” were themselves strong enough to initiate scepticism even if it was offensive to any understanding of history.

Then came the assault on the people of Gaza. This is obviously more relevant to politics in my later homes of the USA and Germany, which continue to arm and support Israel, demonise Palestinians, and slander anti-Zionist protestors. The Irish state’s inability to act is, however, still an illustration of the power dynamics that ultimately govern international politics. Despite my inherent cynicism at this stage, I am perplexed that the pictures coming from Gaza broadcast over an ever increasing range of platforms have not budged mainstream policy.

How much evidence is needed to withdraw your consent of this system? By voting, you are expressing an inherent support for the social contract that allows people who have acted this way to represent you. Voting within a democracy should be an “expression of the struggle within, expressing the solution to a struggle within oneself”, according to theorist Donald Winnicott.

There is a great solace to be found in people who have had similar experiences to you, where politics is a major part of their person. Accounts abound about how important voting was for immigrants coming from authoritarian countries. The pride they have in their vote and their ability to make change was truly inspirational. I believe everyone should have that feeling when voting or expressing a political opinion, as it is or should be a personal reflection and a reflection of yourself. It should be an act of identity formation, in comparison to more overtly repressive regimes. If you think this personal expression would be better attained through a different way of organising, I do not think you should have to lend any legitimacy from your personal expression. When I look at the electoral options on offer in my past homes, there is nothing that comes close to representing my preferences or accounting properly for the failures the governing process itself has produced.

If you don’t want to vote racist, in Ireland your options are limited. Votes for small, social democratic parties are essentially votes for conservative coalitions, as they will never be able to govern alone. There are also “radical Left” options, but they have been calling for a “left government”. This would involve governing with a party that has made it increasingly clear over the past few years it is a centrist party, while also imploding from a series of scandals. If belief in this centrism hasn’t been shaken by now, I don’t know it ever will be.

In Germany, the mainstream parties have taken to coopting the far-right’s agenda. The nation’s borders have been effectively closed since September when controls were reintroduced, and they say want to ship migrants back to Afghanistan. Die Linke is in an even greater crisis, increasingly pro-EU and pro-NATO, and facing significant infighting.

When it comes to the US, what are you even voting for? Kamala Harris decided the Hillary Clinton strategy of courting Republican voters was her best shot. She had, at various points, promised to appoint a Republican to her cabinet, appoint a board of advisors which will intentionally include Republicans, and was joined by former Republican Liz Cheney at an event where a Muslim-American Democratic politician was refused entry. It is hard to tell if they thought this tactic would actually work this time around, or whether she is actively opposed to listening to some of those kicked out of a democratic propaganda event in Chicago. Trump’s comprehensive victory in every swing state shows just how flawed a strategy this was.

If you don’t feel politics is properly representing your opinions, and you don’t feel a major difference between the options presented to you, you have a right to remove the legitimacy you personally lend to this social contract. Just because a large segment of the same political class that let you down feels this is the way to make change does not mean you have to think that way too. In many ways, they rely on your submission to this method of political action for legitimacy. If only 20% of people voted, that would certainly rob a lot of the legitimacy any administration takes from an election victory.

If you think you are making a difference by voting, statistically speaking you are not. This narrative is an effort of democratic psychology. It should be up to those benefitting from your vote to convince you to lend them legitimacy, and withholding that vote should be considered a reasonable option.

There are many reasons to vote, including to show solidarity with people or candidates you personally believe in. You could also vote because you might think it does no harm and sure, why not? There are other forms of political expression, participation, and strategy that do not rely on voting alone, but see it as one part of a broader political strategy. I am not discounting those here, just countering an argument I have heard most of my life and describing the political journey I have gone on to get here. You should be able to withdraw your personal participation in a system that has failed you so often.