This weekend the third richest country in the world goes to the poll to elect a new government. The result is still uncertain, in part thanks to Germany's complex electoral and political system, but more so because electors are not offered a great deal of choice. This is not to detract from the two main candidates to the Chancellorship, although both are far from impressive, but it is a simple reflection on the little difference between the two choices. With the ideological divide between left and right fading, elections all over the world seem increasingly fought on small, detailed and often parochial issues. The risk of descending into the trivial is real and any serious discussion about broader issues should be welcome. This is why I disagree with an article on the IHT (from the Was. Post) about the present Chancellor stand on the war on Iraq. Regardless of my personal opinion on the matter itself, I found it incredible that the Washington Post of all papers should argue with raising the level of discussion.
For historical reasons, Germans are wary of their country involvement in any war. The recent increased role of Germany in the international scene is welcome but so is a serious debate on such issues as making a war. Politicians should not blindly follow instant polls but, at the same time, cannot disregard the will of the people who are electing them. Schroeder tough stand against the war on Iraq, misguided as it may appear from Washington, reflects a real unease in his constituency. Ignoring it, dismissing it to talk only about a tax cut or a reform of the pension system means forgetting that politics should be not only about managing our wallet but also about shaping our life and the world that surrounds us.