A Tale of Two Elections

 

"Look at those lovely trees. Let's put a sign up in front of them!"

Germany and Canada have elections this September and I came across some interesting stats. In Germany, 41 percent of voters are undecied. In Canada, it's 13 percent. 

What's up with that? Are Germans more indecisive voters? Do Canadians just have their minds made up vote by habit? Or is there something else?

Let's start with how they vote.

Germany's federal electoral system is a mixed-member proportional representation system. This means that you vote for your local candidate, and you vote for a party. They don't have to be the same. In 2017, Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union won 185 of the 299 local seats, but only 15 of the 410 proportional party seats. But the far-right Alternative for Germany, the Greens, the Social Democrats, the Left (former DDR communists), and the liberal Free Democrats all got somwhere between got 95 and 60 votes respectively. 

Canada has a first-past-the-post electoral system, so it's one vote for your local candidate who is a member of a political party. The party with that wins in the most local candidate races wins. First-past-the-post is straight-forward, but most of it's Wikipedia page is about its disadvantages.

Often, first-pat-the-post systems allow political parties to form a government with less than 50 percent of the popular vote. This is something the mixed member proportional representation solved. By adding that second party vote, Germany's Bundestag adds a popular vote to the mix that nixes some of Canada's first-past-the-post issues. 

Every vote counts in Canada. But every votes counts more equally in Germany. 

Before he got elected prime minister, Justin Trudeau ran in 2015 on a platform of electoral reform. He was going to hold a referendum on whether to move on from the current system to another. 

But, J.T  wasn't interested in proportional representation. Even though a commision he formed recommended it, he inaccurately claimed it would allow crazy fringe parties into parliament. Germany and other countries set a 5 percent threshold of the party vote that parties most reach to earn seats in the Bundestag for that very reason. So, the Pirate Party, the Vegan Party, the Bavarian independence party, and the Nudist Party must convince 5 percent of the people they're not too crazy to be taken seriously.

Trudeau wanted a ranked ballot system, which his commission didn't recommend and that some experts pointed out would favour his own arrogantly nicknamed "natural governing party." When he wasn't going to get what he wanted, Trudeau gave up on electoral reform in Canada.

Now, how does that long digression come back to undecided voters?

My theory is that German voters are strategic voters. They might have their minds made up for their local candidate, but they're keeping their options open for their party vote. So, someone might vote for the mainstream right-wing CDU, but cast their party vote for the Greens or the AfD because they're worried about climate chnage or want a bit of crazy in the Bundestag.

This makes the elections unpredictable. So, chancellors are loathe to call an opportunistic snap election and stick to the four-year election schedule.

If you're living under the tyanny of the first-past-the-post system, then you only have one vote and you have to go all-in for the mainstream parties or for the crazy parties. There's no splitting your vote on the party level.

That's probably why most Canadians usually have their minds made up. Which means if a prime minister is arrogant enough, he might call an election during a pandemic that no one wants in the hopes of going from a minority government to a majority government.

First-past-the-post system might not keep all the crazies out of Parliament.

Random Blogs of 2018

I wrote fewer blog post this year then in previous years, but I had plenty of notes and rough drafts of ideas that didn't grow into full blogs. So, here are the best ideas that never became blogs in 2018.

Getting my Permanent Residence in Germany

It was certainly a year of turning points. A new era in the career. A new marital status. A new dependent. In this flurry of life-changing status changes, I never got around to writing about how I became a permanent resident in Germany.

And no, this won't turn into a rant about Germany's Kafkeaucracy. There was actually nothing absurd about it. I got an email asking me to prepare my documents. I went in prepared for an EU Blue Card (a work permit) and was told that with my German language level and contributions to the national pension scheme – the stuff that really matters here – I qualified for permanent residency.

It was simple and not the slog I intended it to be. An American colleague can't believe I got mine so quickly. An old roommate took the German language proficiency test that I never took several times and didn't get his permanent residence. Another Canadian acquaintance is scrambling to get hers before her Blue Card expires.

What makes me so different? I'd like to think it's because I'm special. In reality it's probably because I was over prepared. I had all my required documents and then some, and I was punctual. That matters if you want results from the German bureaucracy.

That Hungarian Election

Viktor Orban and his ruling Fidesz party cruised to another super-majority over a right-wing Jobbik party struggling to be less like its traditional far right self and a divided opposition that couldn't agree on whose local candidates should step down to unite behind one anti-Fidesz candidate.

Guide to German Politics

The Reichstag in Berlin.

The German federal election is this Sunday, so for all those readers abroad who wonder how the German government works – don't lie, you know you've thought about it – here is a quick guide to Germany's political system.

On the surface it might be tempting to compare the German political system to the Canadian system. They're both federal systems with power devolved to provinces or states, but in Canada it's that way because of size. 

In Germany, this system comes from history. Before there was a Germany, there was a bunch of small countries and kingdoms and dukedoms of German-speakers. Bavaria was a kingdom. Hamburg was an independent city-state for centuries. Hesse was a country whose chief exports were cuckoo clocks and mercenaries.

If they weren't completely independent, they enjoyed a certain level sovereignty within the Holy Roman Empire and, later, the German Confederation. Even when Prussia (another German-speaking country) absorbed them all into the German Empire, they were granted a great deal of autonomy.

How today's federal government functions is dictated in Basic Law, Germany's constitution. Rules around institutions can be changed, but not easily. Sections around individual and human rights can never be changed because some assholes in the 1930s did exactly that.

It's worth mentioning that Basic Law's articles were written based on the hard lessons learned from the National Socialist dictatorship and the political deadlock of the Weimar Republic that lead to it.

Bundesrat

This is Germany's upper house, like Canada's Senate. Unlike Canada's Senators, who are appointed by the prime minister, members of the Bundesrat are sent to Berlin by Germany's 16 states.

They're chosen based on the party composition of their state's assembly, or Landtag, which itself is partly based on proportional representation. States get a base number of delegates, which rises based on population – more people, more votes.

In Canada, the Senate was once considered the sober second thought, above the partisan House of Commons. Germany's Bundesrat is more of a check on federal power. It offers a state perspective on issues and acts as a brake on the federal government's powers over the states.

The Bundesrat doesn't usually propose legislation but it must pass all legislation before is becomes law and has the power to veto bills from the Bundestag.

If the Bundesrat vetoes a bill, and the Bundestag doesn't agree, then it goes to a compromise committee formed of members from both houses, which makes, you guessed it, a compromise. When a compromise is reached, neither Bundesrat or Bundestag can change it.

You can bet there was some hard lessons led to that idea.

Chancellor

Chancellor Angela Merkel is Germany's prime minister. She, along with the cabinet she selects, is the executive branch of the German government. Yes, there is a German president, but he is mostly a ceremonial head of state who signs laws, waves to crowds from balconies, and cuts ribbons.

The Chancellor is the head of the largest party of the Bundestag, or the largest coalition of partners. She and the cabinet proposes legislation. They are the initiators in the law-making process. Ultimately, they hold the real power.

Interesting aside: Chancellors cannot call snap elections and cannot be removed with a No Confidence vote unless a successor has already been chosen. Germany learned the hard way in the Weimar days that a hamstrung parliament just begs for a dictator 'to get things done.'

Bundestag

This is the lower house and will be elected directly by the people this Sunday. They represent the people of their districts and act as a check on the executive – holding question periods, scrutinizing legislation, broaching constituent concerns. In Canada, that's usually the mandate for the Opposition, but in Germany there is no Official Opposition – it's everyone's job.

Voting is a mixed-member proportional system. I can sense your eyes are starting to glaze over, so hold on.

Half of the Bundestag (299 members) are elected directly by their constituencies in a first-past-the-post race. They become the representatives of their specific districts, like an MP in Canada representing their riding.

Now for the proportional representation vote. Hey, don't open another tab! Stay with me!

On the other half of a voter's ballot is a box to tick for a political party. Voters choose their party of choice, which is counted as a popular vote. A percentage of seats are then allocated based on that vote, which is tallied nationwide. This sends a total of almost 600 members to the Bundestag.

This election, Germans get to vote twice: for the person they want to represent their district and for the party that aligns with their political desires.

Political parties must earn at least five percent of that popular vote or win three districts to get earn popular representation seats – again a leftover from the lessons of the Weimar Republic to keep the crazy political fringes from hijacking the Bundestag.

Some words about this election...

Currently, four parties hold seats in the Bundestag – Anglea Merkel's ruling Christian Democratic Party and its Bavarian sister party, Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU), the Social Democrats (SPD), the Left Party, and the Greens.

The right-wing CDU and the left-wing SPD have been in a ruling coalition together and, in compromising with each other, have both drifted to the centre. Many of their traditional supporters look likely to vote for more extreme parties on the left and right. 

The Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the Freedom Party (FDP) have put their immigration and economic policies, respectively, to the right of the traditionally right-wing CDU. Their polling numbers hover at around 10 percent a piece. 

The coalition was more costly for SPD. Despite an energized beginning to the campaign with a new leader, polls now suggest they're in for a big loss. The Left, the Greens have benefitted from the SPD's listless campaign, and are both sitting at around 10% of the popular vote. They might also be losing vote to the AfD too. 

You might not like what they have to say, but parties were sent to the Bundestag by the people who voted for them. That's the beauty of the proportional party vote, it opens up the Bundestag to more parties and more views. Plus, that five percent threshold keeps the crazies out, like the Pirate Party (sounds funny, I know), or the NPD (the not so funny neo-fascists).

This also makes it difficult to predict how the next government will look because the winning party needs to form a coalition with other parties no matter what. The CDU looks likely to win, but with no majority will it seek support from the SPD again? Or will it lean to its right, towards the Freedom Party? Or with the Greens, who are open to a coalition with the CDU?

For those of you who made it to the end of this post, I think we can agree: This is exciting stuff!

Does Anyone Win in the Dutch Election?

Tomorrow’s Dutch election is shaping up to be a contest between two parties, the incumbent right-wing, elitist-loving conservative party and the white-skinned anger goblins of the alt-right party.

That’s not entirely fair to the 28 other parties we don’t hear about running for seats in the election. These aren’t the crackpot fringe parties of Canadian elections either – the Marijuana Party of Canada really should’ve named itself the Pot Party – seventeen of them have seats in the Dutch House of Representatives.

There are socialist, liberal, and conservative parties. There’s an animal rights’ party. The 50+ Party for seniors. There are parties for Christians and Calvinists. A party based on astrology, called the Party for Human and Spirit. There’s an anti-racist party, which has no seats yet. There is a Pirate Party too.

They all have a shot at winning or keeping seats with Holland’s system of proportional representation. Think of it! All those voices. All those politicians with different platforms, ideas, policies, and agendas working together.

So why is it that the only politician we hear about is the leader of the alt-right anger goblin party? Why is the only election issue we hear of is about staying in the European Union or addressing some imagined Muslim problem?

Forcing the non-issues

The Netherlands is wrestling with an ageing population, a falling birthrate, and a corporate tax system that invites fraud – just to name a few election issues. Now I’m only getting a taste of the election coverage as an English-speaker, I hope Dutch news coverage is more comprehensive. 

If every lead international news story is some racist politician somewhere saying something racist, over time the only narrative for the election in voters' minds is about that politician. Then two choices emerge in the voter’s mind: the ruling party, which is news because it dictates policy and the most grabbing attention opposition politicians.

There are two principles in advertising at work here. One is that familiarity with a brand potentially leads to loyalty to a brand. So when you’re about to buy deodorant you gravitate towards the deodorant you’ve heard about – hearing enough about something implies legitimacy.

The other is people post-rationalize their emotional decisions. You hear this in clothing stores where people offer sensible reasons for the thing they impulsive bought. You say you need that really cool sweater that's on sale because it’s cold outside sometimes, glossing over the fact you already own 12 sweaters.

Put those two principles together and you have a situation where voters gravitate towards politicians they are more familiar with – through the nightly news, newspapers, or social media – and they rationalize those politicians’ emotional appeals into something, well, less irrational.

Reflect before you elect

That’s how an idea as farcical as Brexit became a part of the UK’s political conversation, and how half the voters turned the emotional message of political sovereignty into an irrational idea of economic prosperity.

There’s very little we can do about the media, it covers the outrageous no matter what. As voters, we need to see we’re being manipulated. We must understand we’re emotional beings – not as smart as we think we are, but definitely smarter than the populists give us credit for.

We need to look a little harder at our own political thoughts and actions. Where do they come from? Why do I like what that politician is saying? How are my problems being addressed? We need to be a little more rational about ourselves.

Otherwise the anger goblins of the world might end up running things. 

The Success of Dorf's Failed Terror Plot

Dusseldorf's Altstadt, during Christmas.

Dusseldorf has made headlines around the world for terror plot.

Four men were arrested on terrorist charges. Half planned to blow themselves up in Dusseldorf's Altstadt, while the other two would shot people in the ensuing confusion. The Altstadt is the centre of the Dorf's nightlife, so it could have been messy if it happened.

What we know is a Syrian man was arrested in France in March and confessed about the attack and his three accomplices, who were arrested after weeks of surveillance.

Kata expressed concern that the Islamic State was coming for Germany after the Paris and Brussels attacks. I shrugged it off; they have to find the Dorf before they can attack it.

Well, they found the Dorf.

It's called a failed plot, but it was successful. Some are thinking twice before going to the Altstadt. Others simply react like they would have been present if it happened – as if the attack would have occurred when they were in the Altstadt for their weekly shopping trip or night out.

But, that's why it's called terrorism: You fear for yourself so much you ignore the outsized odds of even witnessing an attack.

The plot's other success is a slower burn. At least two of the suspects came to Germany along the Migrant Route through Turkey and Greece and recent reports about sleeper cells in refugee camps only add fuel to the fire.

Germany is not France or Belgium, where immigrants are systemically ignored into powerty and extremism. Even before the so-called refugee crisis, Germany had one of Europe's most robust programs for registering migrants and providing them social welfare and language courses.

But that was a different time. 

We're a little more cynical now. We defend liberal ideals and Christian values but refuse to uphold them. We build fences. We elect nationalists. We cut deals with dictators to keep people in need away.

We think we live in dark times, that terrorists are taking advantage of our kindness, that people with the resolve to cross stormy seas and walk hundreds of miles will do nothing but collect welfare cheques when they arrive.

Times are not bad. The suspects were rounded up. We've never been safer from war, disease, and famine. UEFA Euro 2016 is just around the corner and it's the summer. We have so little to fear in the world that we shouldn't forget that now is the perfect time for a drink in the Altsadt.

Omnibus Blog 3: Mostly Politics

Once again I am cramming several posts into one awesome Omnibus Blog! This time it's all about politics.


Karneval's Political Parade Floats

Karneval is a time for debauchery, but on Rose Monday, it becomes a time for parades. During Mardi Gras in New Orleans, people mount the floats and toss beads and doubloons to the crowds below. In the Rhineland, they take on a political bend.

Tsirpas takes aim at Cyclops Angela in 2015's Rose Monday parade.

In what is my favourite Karneval tradition, the parade floats become gigantic, 3-dimensional political cartoons. This float was applauded by the crowd (this was shortly after the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris).

Some floats make fun of topics of the day, like the one above of a cycloptic German Chancellor Angela Merkel and slingshot-wielding a Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsirpas. One of this year's floats pissed off the new Polish government, which is too angry at everything to realize that when you complain about satire about you more people pay attention to that satire.

Many floats target political extremism of Islamic terror groups like ISIS or the increasingly hateful far right-wing fringe of german politics, like the Alternative for Germany or, as shown below, the National Democratic Party of Germany. 

These are all things worth satirising and demonstrates that politics belongs to the streets just as much as the legislature.

Trump got the Karneval treatment this year.

The float that angered the new Polish government.

Canadians, please remember NDP in Germany stands
for the National Democratic Party of Germany.

Britain out? Scotland in?

Reading the news lately you would think the European Union is in a lot of trouble. This isn't new. The EU feels so precarious at times – staying together it seems with nothing but hope, a tangled bureaucracy, dental floss, and chewing gum – that it's natural to see every problem as a crisis that will tear the whole thing down.

As of this posting, a British exit from the EU is one such possible problem being blown into a crisis.

During last year's UK election, Prime Minister David Cameron promised to hold a referendum on the country's EU membership. Doing this helped him placate his increasingly anti-EU base and arguably win the election.

Using that as a bargaining chip, Cameron negotiated a settlement that allows UK exemption on stop paying welfare and child care benefits to migrant workers and special protections for City of London financial sector.

Despite the lack of political or economic sense to leave the EU, the concessions might be enough for the UK's eternally-angry Euroskeptics or for EU Parliamentarians, who vote on them as well.

Many EU member states already resent the UK's special status and take umbrage to the settlement. And Eastern European member states, where many of those migrant workers come from, are not liking this either.

Now, a referendum on joining the EU in Denmark was narrowly defeated in 1992, which put the whole EU at risk of not being formed at all. A special agreement was reached to gave Denmark exemptions for military independence and keeping its currency, the krone.

The UK's case is a little different. Denmark's referendum threatened to kill the EU before it even began. Britain's exit is an unprecedented problem, but it won't imperil the EU – it's just not so good for the continent's economy.

The tangle doesn't end there. Scotland, which held a referendum on its own independence and voted it down by 10 per cent, is mostly pro-EU. The Scottish National Party also holds the majority in its parliament.

If the UK left the EU, there'd certainly be another referendum on Scottish independence, with EU membership as a central issue in the very near future. If Scottish attitudes toward the EU remained the same, Scotland will vote for independence and likely join the EU shortly after.

This would be a double-whammy for the UK: Exit from the EU closes off a market of 300 million people to its exports and leads to the independence of the region with all the UK's oil and whisky.

In the long run, the EU comes out as the winner. It loses its loudest whiniest, grumpiest member state, which wants the economic benefits of being in the EU without the obeying its rules, while getting a new member with a healthy economy and great whisky.

Voting From Afar

The Gregorians had it all wrong when they put the beginning of the new year in January. September truly feels like the first month of the year. By then, vacations are over, along with the fiscal year for some businesses (like ad agencies), school begins, and people slowly shake off the summer laziness. 

By now, a month into the 'New Year,' life has picked up where it left off before the summer. At work, I'm juggling several projects with looming deadlines. Money must be saved and preparations made for the coming Canada trip. There's an urgency to drink patio beers and partake in outdoor activities before winter becomes a reality.

In the midst of this, a Canadian election is scheduled for October 19, and there is one thing I wanted to ensure I made time for.

Casting my Voting as an Expat

As a someone who has lived outside of Canada for less than five years, I am happily still able to vote. I applied for my voting kit (which meant simply sending a scan of my passport and my address to Elections Canada) and cast my vote today (by mail).

It's an interesting process. I didn't tick a box for a candidate; I write in the name of the candidate. Then I put the ballot into a little envelope. Then I took that little envelope and put it into another envelope, which I signed and dated. Then I put it into another envelope, which is the mailing envelope. It felt more like putting together a lickable Matryoshka doll than voting. 

Nevertheless, I miss voting in person, not for the ease of it – although licking my way through the voting kit was a little weird. It's a comforting ritual to walk in the polling station, mark an X beside my candidate, and drop it into the ballot box. 

Elections Canada made this process very easy for me, but it's startling to see that only 6,000 Canadians out of maybe 2.8 million living outside of Canada cast a vote. 

It's startling, but somewhat understandable. I didn't know I could vote from abroad, and I've always made a point of voting, but a similar ignorance might keeps expats away. Or a perception that it's difficult (which it isn't). Or old fashioned indifference (not unlikely).

Exercising my right this way might not last long. A court struck down Canadian citizens' right to vote if they've been living elsewhere for over five years. The court's decision was rooted in the argument that expat's votes would upset the social contract between the government and current residents in Canada. 

I understand that argument, but to me that means the system should be tweaked just a bit. 

My Parliamentary Expat Reform Bill

My suggestion? Expats should get our own Member of Parliament. Just because we've been away for a while doesn't mean we don't have ties to Canada (property, investments, family, citizenship) or that we never intend to return.

Having our own MP would attract more voters and bring a different perspective. We're copywriters in Germany, teachers in Indonesia, and hockey players in the United States. Where we live shouldn't invalidate us from making an informed decision – we are still Canadian citizens, after all.

Recently, Prime Minister Harper has proposed more changes. Mostly, it would make it difficult to vote from afar. Rather than emailing a scan of my passport, I would have to get someone to vouch for me that I am from the riding that I intend to vote in. 

There is a pattern here. In the last election, mysterious robocalls sent voters to the wrong polling stations. A new law that should have countered this instead instituted rigorous identification procedures for voting. The stated purpose was stopping people from voting more than once, but it merely succeeded in making it more difficult for students, pensioners, and the homeless to vote. Budget cuts to Elections Canada and for voting advocacy have not helped either.

This obfuscation of the democratic process is shameful enough, but it's not the only problem. Voter turnout was only around 60% in Canada. 

It's so disheartening to see people throw away their vote by not voting. yes, the country's and the world's problems can seem so daunting that our vote seems like it won't make a difference. But it's also so ridiculously easy (for now) that there's no reason why we all shouldn't give it a shot.

Strange Places Guide to the European Union

A long period of blissful ignorance ended when I began learning about the EU and how it functions, or malfunctions. For your education, or if you're suffering from insomnia, here is what I have learned.


EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Who is on it: Every country gets one commissioner, who swears an oath to the European Court of Justice. In theory, they're bound to serve the EU and not their own countries. In theory. 

Why it is important: They cover the day-to-day business, implement decisions, write and propose legislation to European Parliament. Political scientists would call it the EU's executive branch – if it was one person it would be the president or king of the EU.

How it works: Each commissioner has a portfolio, like Canadian cabinet ministers, covering finance or infrastructure or whatever. The European Council (more on them below) proposes the president, based on the results of the European Parliament elections. This is why Jean-Claude Juncker, as a member of the European People's Party, the parliament's biggest party, is the commission president. 

Why people don't like it: The European Commission represents what many Euroskeptics loath about the EU: it's not directly democratic. How else can a former Luxembourger prime minister reach such a lofty position? 

Why countries don't like it: On the other hand, countries like the United Kingdom, Germany, and Hungary hate ceding power to the EU, so the weaker this institution, the stronger they are nationally. This is why these countries and others fought hard against Juncker becoming president in the first place.

What does Marshall think: The European Commission has been a guiding force behind tighter control, including economic control, from Brussels, which would prevent another Greek debt crisis.

EUROPEAN COUNCIL

Who is on it: It's not quite an official EU body. It's more like a summit of the EU countries' leaders – their prime ministers, foreign ministers, presidents, or the Taoiseach, if you are Irish.

Why it is important: They have no real, formal powers and they can't make laws. The one thing they officially do is appoint the president of the European Central Bank, which is a big deal in these dark, Grexit times.

No, but really, why is it important: Okay, okay. They guide the EU in a strategic, long-term sense. This might sound like one of those puppet masters pulling the strings until you realize they have this vision of the future and then various EU bodies and individual countries just do their own thing. Looking at you, United Kingdom.

How it works: It does, and it doesn't. They will jump in to help resolve a big crisis, like the Ukraine, but its success or failure depends on how much everyone wants to cooperate.

Why people don't like it: European politicians really like a European Council President who doesn't make any waves. The last one (he was so blah, I can't remember his name...) was really good at "consensus building," which is a euphemism for not pissing anyone off. Granted, that's difficult to achieve in the EU, but that doesn't mean it's a virtue either. The current president, former Polish prime minister Donald Tusk, is a former political activist who has taken a strong stance against Russia's aggression in Ukraine, despite the economic cost to other EU members.

What does Marshall think: The European Council, particularly under Tusk, has been the strongest opponent to Putin and his expansionist foreign policy. It's been the Council over and over again proposing sanctions and calling for the rest of Europe to back up Eastern Europe, and proving its relevance.



COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Who is on it: It's made up of national ministers from each country, but the actual membership changes depending on what is being debated and/or decided. If it is a money bill, then the finance ministers are sitting on the Council. Infrastructure means it is development ministers. And so on.

Why it is important: With these names, it's likely getting confusing now. The Council of the EU is part of the legislative branch, its upper house.

How it works: Think of it as an EU Senate, with equal regional representation of its members. It proposes, writes, debates, and votes on new laws. Their decisions must be unanimous, which isn't so easy because their oaths are to their own countries, not the EU.

How it stops working and gets frustrating: Almost everything they pass must also pass in the European Parliament. Parliament can propose amendments and the Council can decide to accept them or veto them. This means a bill go can back and forth between the two legislatures for a while. If this occurs twice, then it goes to a Conciliation Committee. This happens often to the budget, which ensures there is no absurd American-style government shutdown.

Why people don't like it: Once again, there is no direct representation of the voters here – is that a pattern emerging? The whole legislative process gets a little messy because you have politicians representing their countries' interests writing laws that have to pass in European Parliament, where politicians are voting based on ideology or their voting blocs or their local constituency or however they happen to feel about something – it's chaos in there.

Why people really don't like it or really like it, depending on who you ask: These guys (sorry, it is mostly guys) get special powers on the environment and tax policy, so they can write laws and skip the headache of going through Parliament. They like this because Parliament can seem like anarchy to them, but it is a sticking point for Euroskeptics who claim the EU is not democratic (see, there is a pattern!).



EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Who is on it: Parliament is elected every five years. It's the only European Union institution that is elected directly by its own citizens. It is made up of 751 Members of European Parliament from 28 countries who represent 375 million voters (I looked that up).

Why it might seem weak: It is technically the legislative branch, but it has no power to propose or write laws. Instead they sit back and debate legislation and propose.

Why it's important: On the flip side, it appoints the EU Commission president and shares budget powers with the EU Council – that matters, because money matters. 

Why it sounds like a lot of fun: It's a democratic free-for-all! Where else will you find Greek Syriza members debating in the same room UK Independence Party? It is Europe's political soapbox. Centre-left parties, like the European People's Party, hold the most seats, but far right and left wings groups, who are largely against the EU, hold about 10 per cent of the seats. They're all in there arguing and pissing each other off! Democracy can be so ugly it's beautiful.

How it works: Yes, it does actually work. It has no power over European Council matters, like customs, extradition, justice issues, monetary policy (beyond the budget), or citizenship. This is likely a comfort to top EU leaders who wouldn't want the crazies (far right or left wing parties) messing with those things, but almost every bill has to come before the European Parliament for a vote.

How it works, day to day: The European Parliament's make-up is an unhappy medium between seats per country and representation based on population. It's strange math that means 500,000 Maltese get six seats, Hungary has 21 seats and Germany, the EU's most populous state has 96 seats. 

One of the reasons Marshall likes it: Parties are based on ideology rather than national interest, and this is encouraged by the EU. If parties can gather 25 MEPs, they can form a bloc to get some funding and seats in committees where they propose amendments to legislation. Outside of the blocs, MEPs can grandstand and vote to their hearts content, but to be effective, you want to band together and push for ideas that are larger than the country you're from.



EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

Why am I mentioning the ECB: It's been in the news a lot lately, so it's worth mentioning. But I will be brief because this section is the most likely to induce sleep among anyone with the grace or fortitude to make it this far into this post. 

What is it: The ECB is the EU's money reserve. It's in charge of price stability and the EU's monetary policy. Only the ECB prints Euro notes, a power that was darkly illustrated a few weeks ago when Greek banks had to reset their withdrawal limits from 60€ to 50€ because they ran out of 20s.

How it works: The central bank is separate from the other EU institutions – remember from earlier: the European Council appoints the ECB president. They have to report to Parliament and the European Commission, but they can pretty much do whatever they want. For example, EU politicians couldn't agree on how to address deflation – not that I could either – so the ECB said screw you all and instituted quantitative easing, which meant pumping a trillion Euros into the economy. The issue was so complicated that no one was really that pissed off about it.

Still conscious after that? Good job! Next time I will write another post about beer or history or something.

Metro Politics

The Hungarian election came and went this past weekend. Fidesz, the incumbent ruling party, bullied its ways into power with its supermajority intact. It won despite entering the election with, according to some estimates, a 25 per cent approval rating.

I’m not going to get too deep into Hungarian politics, mostly because I have tried and failed in eight blog drafts, which lay crumpled in my computer’s recycle bin. It’s tough for a non-Hungarian, unable to read the local news or watch evening news, I rely reports from foreign sources and scuttlebutt from Hungarian friends  – all of which are helpful, but not completely reliable on their own.

When I sat to write this draft, I thought about what I have seen myself and what I know for certain.

Since my arrival to Hungary, construction is everywhere. A large public square near my apartment has constantly been closed with maze-like fenced detours. Some workers look as if they are simply rearranging bricks on the sidewalks. Others working in a heavily-used pedestrian underpass are hidden from sight behind partitions and there was not a lot of work noises coming from behind that partition.

Then there is Budapest’s fourth subway line, which has been under construction for, depending on who you ask, ten to twenty years. It has been held up as an object of infrastructure mismanagement and outright graft. All the signs are there: workers leaning on shovels every time I pass by, opaque government contracts, and construction that never ends.

This has changed. Roads and public squares and pedestrian underpasses have been miraculously completed in the weeks leading up to last weekend’s vote, culminating in the opening of Budapest's fourth subway line.

There are problems, of course. It is a relatively short line, the stops are close together (like five-minute walk close together), and its opening on the weekend before the election has clearly timed to coincide with the election.

Despite all of that, the completed subway is impressive to behold. Its high ceilings mean you do not feel like you are underground. Its tiled mosaics, curious lighting features, exposed concrete beams and buttresses, outdoor water features are attractive, without feeling excessive.

The Budapest transit authority allowed riders on the shiny new subway for free on its inaugural weekend. The whole city it seemed came out to check out this once mythical fourth subway line, including myself and a few friends.

Is it a monument to mismanagement and graft? Possibly, and it would not be surprising. Was its recent opening a feckless political maneuver conveniently timed to grab votes? Of course! But, I think we can all agree that despite all of this, at least it is very easy on the eyes.

The trippy mosaic at Szent Gellért tér

The escalator from heaven at Rákóczy tér. 

You can skip stones at Rákóczy tér. Good? Bad? Fun! 

These guys agree, it's a metro with a lot of room to breathe

A few of the stations, like Fővám tér, have high ceilings with criss-crossing concrete beams.

Socialism's Leftovers

All that's left of Josef Stalin's monument? His boots.

Up in the hills of Buda there is a train operated by children.

Well, they’re not operating the trains themselves, the're operating the train line. There are 11-year-olds are up there, selling tickets, collecting tickets, working the signals, conducting conductor duties and shouting what I’m sure is “All aboard” in Hungarian.

The railway winds its way through the woods and high up into the hills, beginning near a Budapest tram lines’ last stop and terminating atop one of Buda’s higher hills.

There are old socialist-style murals and posters all over the first station. It feels like one of those Soviet programs for children to teach them elemental socialist values about the importance of a hard day’s work in the service of the state. Think of the Young Pioneers, which were the Soviet Union’s version of boy scouts, only these kids get trains.

Being conducted by the little  people of the Children's Railway

The train kids perform their duties and take them seriously in the way kids do when you give them a sharp-looking uniform and an important job. It’s a beautiful ride too. You travel through the Buda’s forests, make brief stops at old and, with the rainy weather, deserted train stations until the last stop. 

But it despite the family friendly atmosphere and the fact these kids were born well after the Berlin Wall fell, the Children's Railway still feels very East Bloc.

Engels, Marx and me

It’s an interesting holdover from the Hungary’s communist days. There are vestiges of Hungary’s socialist era, but while much has been swept away, I’ve become interested in what has remained, and why. So when I first heard about Memento Park, I knew  I had to visit, and bring my photog-friend Marcin along.

Marcin grew up in communist Poland before moving to Canada and his love for communist iconography is well known among our group of friends: He received a Mao Tse Tung garden gnome as a housewarming gift.

Memento Park is where socialist Hungary’s grander garden gnomes have been laid to rest when they were removed after communism fell. All the tributes to the Soviet ‘liberators ’ and Hungary’s socialist heroes came here to be seen, rather than destroyed.

The designer of the park said: “This park is about dictatorship. And at the same time, because it can be talked about, described, built, this park is about democracy. After all, only democracy is able to give the opportunity to let us think freely about dictatorship.”

It's a noble gesture, considering so much the era's documents remain unstudied and so much of the collective memory goes unshared. 

By laying all of these grand pieces of propaganda to bear, there is a chance for discussion about it, but the potential for jocular poses with the statues. We did both, which is what democracy is for: the serious and the silly.