Green-Red in Baden-Württemberg: How Much Change Should There Be?

Picture by Grüne Baden-Württemberg under CC License

“Change is coming.  Baden-Württemberg 2011 – 2016.”  This statement appears on the title page of the green-red coalition agreement.  It sounds like a project, even a major project, for which the coming five years will only be the beginning.  A strong wind of change is blowing – from the nearly 100 pages of the coalition agreement throughout the entire state of Baden-Württemberg.  “Renew and preserve” is the mandate stated in the preamble.  And near the end it reads, “We see ourselves as a real people’s government.”  Accordingly, people’s expectations will determine the wind’s strength.  So what do the people expect of their new government?  How much change should there be?  And in what areas?

The people of Baden-Württemberg want a new kind of politics

Just as a physician’s therapy can only be understood (and accepted) in the light of his diagnosis, so too can the answers of the green-red coalition agreement only be assessed in the light of the analysis on which that agreement is based.  In broad terms, this means: “Baden-Württemberg has voted for change.  On March 27, 2011, the people chose a new kind of politics, above all, also a new style of politics,” as the agreement states.  Only malcontents would point out at this juncture that, with 39 percent, the Christian Democratic Union remained by far the strongest party in Stuttgart or that the number of voters who stayed home was greater than those who voted for the Greens and Social Democrats.  After nearly 60 years, Baden-Württemberg has voted for change.  That’s the way the people and the parties in Baden-Württemberg unanimously see it.

The details get more complicated.  What is the diagnosis – beyond the global desire for change? The coalition agreement states: “Baden-Württemberg is a strong state with weaknesses.  Mountains of debt were racked up even in good times.  A relatively low unemployment rate stands in sharp contrast with the increase in precarious employment.  Even in the rich state of Baden-Württemberg, child poverty is growing, the social chasm is ever widening.  A top, successful education system is leaving many children behind.  In no other country does heritage so profoundly determine educational opportunities.  The shift towards sustainable energy was impeded at the highest levels in our country.  And although many of our small and medium-sized businesses have embarked on environmental technologies, economic policy has not yet decisively embraced the markets of the future.  We were elected to break this impasse.  We will fulfill this mandate in a considered, measured, and moderate fashion.”

That is a remarkable diagnosis – for what it says, but also, no less, for what it does not say.  To start by calling attention to the debt situation is courageous.  To criticize the situation on the labor market in Baden-Württemberg is courageous.  Not to explicitly mention Stuttgart 21 or nuclear energy is courageous – particularly from the viewpoint of the Greens.  Neither issue comes up until after page 30 in the coalition agreement.

Interpreting the voters’ mandate from an election is clearly a creative process.  But as a “real people’s government,” the new coalition government must remain focused on the wishes and expectations of the people.  So are those the expectations and wishes they have of the new government?

We know from decades of election research that certain parties have to take on certain issues in order to remain successful over the long term.  The American political scientist John Petrocik calls it “issue ownership.”  And when a party is successful on election day, it means first and foremost that the party must implement its own ideas in precisely these areas – advertisers refer to it as “the core of a brand.”

What does that mean for the new coalition government?  For the Greens, environmental and nuclear energy issues are beyond a doubt their brand core.  They have no competition on these issues, despite all attempts by, say, the Social Democrats and the Left to likewise establish themselves as anti-nuclear energy parties.  Similarly, “social justice” is the issue of the Social Democrats.  However, since the Agenda 2010, the link between this issue and the Social-Democratic party has weakened.

These images of the parties are also reflected in the results of the survey we conducted before and after the state parliamentary election in Baden-Württemberg.  Environmental and energy policies are unequivocally the domain of the Greens; social justice points towards the Social Democrats.  In these areas, the parties are viewed as competent and credible.  Consequently, these are also the issues on which they now have to implement their ideas.

The economy and also issues concerning the labor market, on the other hand, are still more the domain of the Christian Democratic Union.  Attempting to set priorities here in a manner which will lead to lasting success is an enormously difficult undertaking for the green-red coalition.  This is even more so true, because people in the state, virtually without exception, are satisfied with the economic situation.  There is hardly room for improvement.  It will be difficult to score points on this front.

All that remains is the special issue “Stuttgart 21.”  Much has been said – at least outside the coalition agreement – about this issue and in particular about the dangers still lurking there for the coalition partners and especially for the Greens.  Indeed, the notion that a Green minister-president would begin construction on the underground train station (and inaugurate it?) seems like the wrong approach.  But a “real people’s government” looks good by taking the course of the past and coming months – from protests to mediation, to referendum.  The referendum is also precisely what the people in the state expect: The Greens in particular (even more so than the Social Democrats!) have come to be viewed as “pro-referendum” over the past months.  Already the impression that this could be called into question was dicey.  Maintaining credibility – even at the cost of a referendum honorably lost – seems the lesser evil.

The Green’s mandate is to determine the future of energy policy

The discussions surrounding nuclear energy policy and the consequences of the federal government’s moratorium have reaffirmed how enormously important credibility is to political success.  The state parliamentary election took place in the shadow of the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plants – and its outcome can be viewed only in this light.  This is precisely where many people in the state see the mandate of the green-red coalition government.  The future of energy policy, the future of nuclear energy policy – that is the green issue.  It is – once the euphoria of the election victory subsides, once the future of the train station is clear – precisely where the Greens must make their mark.  This is true now more than ever, because they are now at the levers of power.  Not only in a proverbial sense, because they lead the Ministry for the Environment, Climate, and the Energy Sector, but also in a very concrete sense, by virtue of the state’s 45% stake in the energy giant Energie Baden-Württemberg AG which Stefan Mappus left them.  The Green’s competence and creditability over the long term will be tested here.  And anyone who wants to know how mission-critical the outcome of that test is should consider the fate of the Social-Democratic coalition partner following the Agenda 2011.  “The melting of the Social-Democratic brand core” can serve as a cautionary tale.

This article was first published in German.