Ist Finnlands Hinwendung zum Thatcherismus noch aufzuhalten?

Ein Gespräch mit Li Andersson, Parteivorsitzende der finnischen Linkspartei Vasemmistoliitto (Linksbündnis), über die Prioritäten und Herausforderungen der finnischen Linke vor der Europawahl.

Im Vorfeld der Wahl zum Europäischen Parlament im Juni 2024 führt die Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung eine Reihe von Interviews mit Parteien und Kandidat*innen aus der ganzen EU durch, um den Wahlkampf, die politischen Forderungen und die Herausforderungen für die politische Linke in den jeweiligen Ländern und in Europa zu diskutieren.

Duroyan Fertl sprach mit Li Andersson, EU-Kandidatin und Parteivorsitzende der finnischen Linkspartei Vasemmistoliitto über die Prioritäten der finnischen Linken in diesem Jahr.

Welche Prioritäten hat sich Vasemmistoliitto im diesjährigen Europawahlkampf gesetzt? Was sind Eure wichtigsten Wahlkampfthemen und Forderungen?

Wir wollen den Wähler*innen vor Augen führen, dass die aktuelle Situation in Finnland das ist, was herauskommt, wenn Rechtskonservative mit Rechtsextremen oder Rechtspopulisten koalieren. Auf nationaler Ebene beobachten wir historische Angriffe auf Gewerkschaften und Arbeitnehmer*innen, extreme Sparmaßnahmen im Bereich der sozialen Sicherheit und im Gesundheitswesen sowie Rückschritte in der Klima- und Umweltpolitik. Unsere wichtigste Botschaft ist, dass wir in den Europawahlen dafür sorgen müssen, dass sich diese Entwicklungen auf europäischer Ebene nicht wiederholen – dass bei den Europawahlen genau das auf dem Spiel steht.

Unsere wichtigsten Themen sind Arbeitnehmer*innenrechte und die Notwendigkeit, eine ambitionierte europäische Sozial- und Arbeitsmarktpolitik zu verfolgen. Natürlich hätte in den letzten Jahren viel mehr getan werden können, aber dennoch hat die EU einiges erreicht, insbesondere verglichen mit dem, was die rechte Regierung in Finnland gerade tut. Außerdem ist es nötig, in den kommenden Jahren auf EU-Ebene Jugendrechte, Jungendarbeitslosigkeit und die psychische Gesundheitskrise in den Fokus stellen. Des Weiteren ist natürlich eine ambitionierte Klima- und Umweltpolitik zentral. In all diesen Bereichen könnte ein potentieller Wahlsieg der rechten oder rechtsextremen Parteien den größten Schaden anrichten. Aus diesem Grund stellen wir diese Themen in den Mittelpunkt unseres Wahlkampfs.

Lesen Sie den vollständigen Artikel auf der Website der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung - Büro Brüssel.

Opposing Finland’s Thatcherist Turn

An interview with Li Andersson, MEP candidate and leader of the Finnish Left Alliance, Vasemmistoliitto, about the challenges facing the Finnish Left in 2024.

As the European Parliament elections this June draw nearer, the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation is conducting a series of interviews with left-wing parties and candidates from across the EU on the election campaign, their political programmes, and the challenges facing left-wing forces domestically and at a European level.

The foundation’s Duroyan Fertl spoke to Li Andersson, MEP candidate and leader of the Finnish Left Alliance, Vasemmistoliitto, about her party’s priorities in this super election year.

What are Vasemmistoliitto’s key priorities in this European Parliament election campaign? What are your key campaign areas or flagship demands?

Our narrative in these elections revolves around reminding voters that the current situation in Finland is what happens when the conservative right wing teams up with the far right or populist right. We are seeing historic attacks against trade unions and workers at a national level, with extreme austerity cuts in social security and health care services, and backwards steps on climate and environmental policy. Our main message is that in the European elections we need to make sure this same development is not replicated on a European level, that this is what is at stake in the European elections.

The main issues we are talking about are workers’ rights, and the need for the EU to pursue ambitious social and labour market policies. Much more could have been done in the past few years, of course, but what has come out of the EU has been fairly good, especially compared to what Finland’s right-wing government is doing. We are also highlighting the need for the EU to focus on youth rights, youth unemployment, and the mental health crisis in the coming years. Of course, we are also talking about the need to continue with an ambitious climate and environmental policy.

These are all areas where a potential right-wing or far-right electoral victory would have the most damaging effect, so we are placing them at the heart of our main narrative in this election.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

«Wir besinnen uns auf unsere Grundwerte zurück»

Ein Gespräch mit Frederikke Hellemann, Kandidatin der rot-grünen Allianz, über die Herausforderungen für die dänische Linke im Jahr 2024.

Im Vorfeld der Wahl zum Europäischen Parlament im Juni 2024 führt die Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung eine Reihe von Interviews mit Parteien und Kandidat*innen aus der ganzen EU durch, um den Wahlkampf, ihre politischen Forderungen und die Herausforderungen für die Linke in ihren Ländern und in Europa zu diskutieren.

Duroyan Fertl sprach mit Frederikke Hellemann, der Nummer zwei auf der Liste der dänischen Linkspartei Enhedslisten (EL), über die Prioritäten der dänischen Linken in diesem Jahr.

Was sind die Prioritäten von Enhedslisten für diese Europawahl?

Unsere Priorität in diesem Wahlkampf ist, die Menschen davon zu überzeugen, dass Enhedslisten auf ihrer Seite steht. Wir wollen ein sicheres, grünes und gerechtes Europa schaffen, das sich gegen die Auswirkungen des Klimawandels schützt. Mehr als der Hälfte des Trinkwassers in Dänemark ist mit Pestiziden und PFAS – sogenannten «ewige Chemikalien» – verunreinigt. In Südeuropa erleben wir Waldbrände und Überschwemmungen. All das sind Anzeichen dafür, dass Europa weder sicher noch gesund ist. Dagegen können wir nur angehen, wenn wir den grünen Wandel vollziehen.

Dazu müssen alle an einem Strang ziehen und die Verschmutzer*innen, die Reichsten, müssen das zahlen. Zum Glück schafft man, wenn etwa Häuser renoviert werden, Windräder gebaut und all das tut, was für ein grünes Europa nötig ist, viele gut bezahlte Arbeitsplätze. Und natürlich wollen wir sicherstellen, dass für diese Arbeitsplätze Tarifverträge gelten.

Deshalb sind unsere Prioritäten Klimaschutz und Artenvielfalt. Wir wollen zu Ende führen, was wir mit dem Grünen Deal, dem Naturwiederherstellungsgesetz und den Vorschlägen zur Landwirtschaft begonnen haben. Wir wollen auch dafür sorgen, dass Geld für die richtigen Zwecke ausgegeben wird. Wir setzen uns dafür ein, das EU-Vergaberecht wieder zu öffnen, damit wir Tarifverträge fordern können, wenn wir als Regierungen oder als Kommunen einkaufen. Wir wollen ein faires Europa und ein besseres Abkommen für Flüchtlinge, damit sie gerechter auf die Mitgliedstaaten verteilt werden und die Kosten von den Reichen getragen werden.

Lesen Sie den vollständigen Artikel auf der Website der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung - Büro Brüssel.

“Back to Basics”

An interview with Red-Green Alliance candidate Frederikke Hellemann on the challenges facing the Danish Left in 2024.

As the European Parliament elections this June draw nearer, the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation is conducting a series of interviews with left-wing parties and candidates from across the EU on the election campaign, their political programmes, and the challenges facing left-wing forces domestically and at a European level.

The foundation’s Duroyan Fertl spoke to Frederikke Hellemann, second on the list for Danish Left-Green Alliance, or Enhedslisten, about the Danish Left’s priorities in this super election year.

What are Enhedslisten’s key priorities or campaign areas in this European Parliament election campaign?

For this campaign, we have an umbrella theme of convincing people that Enhedslisten is on their side. This means creating a Europe that is safe, green, and just, that is safe from climate change. We are finding dangerous pesticides and PFAS — so-called “forever chemicals” — in over half of the drinking water in Denmark. We see flooding and forest fires in the south of Europe. All these things point to a Europe that is not safe and not healthy and the only way to combat these things is to complete the green transition.

For this to happen we need everyone on board, and to make sure that it is the polluters — the richest — who pay. Luckily, when you renovate homes, when you build windmills, when you do all the things that are necessary to create a green Europe, you also create many well-paying jobs. And, of course, we want to make sure that those jobs have collective agreements.

Therefore, for us the key priorities are going to be climate action and biodiversity — to finish what we started with the Green Deal, with the Nature Restoration Law, and with the proposals touching on agriculture. We are also campaigning on ensuring public money is spent in the right way. We want to reopen the EU Public Procurement law so we can demand collective agreements when we are buying as governments or as municipalities. We want a fair Europe and a better deal for refugees, with a fairer division among member states, and for all of this to be paid for by the rich.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

„Wir müssen den Menschen Hoffnung geben“

Ein Gespräch mit Hanna Gedin von der schwedischen Linkspartei über die Prioritäten und Herausforderungen der schwedischen Linken vor der Europawahl.

Im Vorfeld der Wahl zum Europäischen Parlament im Juni 2024 führt die Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung eine Reihe von Interviews mit Parteien und Kandidat:innen aus der ganzen EU durch, um den Wahlkampf, ihre politischen Forderungen und die Herausforderungen für die politische Linke in den jeweiligen Ländern und in Europa zu diskutieren. Duroyan Fertl sprach mit Hanna Gedin, der Nummer zwei auf der Liste der schwedischen Linkspartei Vänsterpartiet, über die aktuellen Prioritäten der schwedischen Linken.

Welche Prioritäten setzt sich die Vänsterpartiet für diese Europawahl? Was sind die wichtigsten Wahlkampfthemen und Forderungen?

Wir haben drei Prioritäten in diesem Wahlkampf: Klimawandel, gute und sichere Arbeitsplätze, und die Lebenshaltungskosten-Krise. In mancher Hinsicht ist die EU beim Klimaschutz progressiver als die rechte schwedische Regierung, die gerade klimapolitische Errungenschaften der letzten Jahre wieder zunichtemacht. Dennoch verbietet das auf EU-Ebene vorherrschende neoliberale Dogma staatliche Beihilfemaßnahmen für die gewaltigen Investitionen, die für den grünen Wandel nötig sind. Es muss den EU-Mitgliedstaaten erlaubt werden, massiv in eine gerecht gestaltete sozial-ökologische Transformation, in die Schaffung von Arbeitsplätzen und in eine bessere Lebensqualität für viele Menschen zu investieren. Gleichzeitig muss die EU aufhören, die fossile Industrie zu subventionieren.

Beim Thema gute Arbeitsplätze geschieht die Priorisierung von Kapital und Wettbewerb in der EU zu Lasten der Qualität der Arbeit. Ein Beispiel dafür ist die aktuelle Debatte um die Richtlinie zur Plattformarbeit. Wir wollen außerdem die Regeln für das öffentliche Beschaffungswesen ändern, die den niedrigsten Preis zum Hauptkriterium für die Auftragsvergabe gemacht haben, was zu Sozialdumping führt. Zusammen mit den europäischen Gewerkschaften fordern wir eine Erneuerung des öffentlichen Vergabewesens, die Sozialklauseln und Tarifverhandlungen in den Vordergrund stellt.

Letztlich sehen wir bei den Lebenshaltungskosten, dass die Inflation zu mehr Armut und sozialer Ungerechtigkeit geführt hat, während gleichzeitig Schwedens Großkonzerne historische Gewinne erzielen. Wir müssen eine neue Gesellschaftsform aufbauen, von der alle Menschen profitieren statt nur einige wenige. Ein tiefliegender Grund für die Wohnungskrise in Schweden – die durch Wohnungsknappheit und steigende Mieten verursacht wird – ist, dass Wohnraum auf dem europäischen Markt schlicht als Ware angesehen wird, was uns daran hindert, staatliche Beihilfen für den Bau neuer Wohnungen zu vergeben und öffentliche Wohnungsunternehmen dazu zwingt, die Marktregeln einzuhalten.

Lesen Sie den vollständigen Artikel auf der Website der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung - Büro Brüssel.

 

”We need to give people hope”

An interview with Hanna Gedin from the Swedish Left Party Vänsterpartiet on the priorities and challenges of the Swedish Left ahead of the European elections.

In the lead up to the 2024 European Parliament elections this June, the Rosa Luxemburg-Stiftung is conducting a series of interviews with parties and candidates from across the EU on the election campaign, their political demands, and the challenges for left forces domestically and at a European level.

Duroyan Fertl spoke to Hanna Gedin, second on the list for Swedish left party Vänsterpartiet, about the Swedish left’s priorities this year.

What are Vänsterpartiet’s key priorities in this European Parliament election campaign? What are your key campaign areas or flagship demands?

There are three key priorities for this campaign: the climate transition, securing good and safe jobs, and the cost of living crisis. In some respects, the EU is more progressive on climate than the right-wing Swedish government, which is now dismantling years of climate policies, but the neoliberal dogma that prevails at the EU level prevents state aid measures to deliver the large investments needed for the green transition. EU member states must be allowed to make huge investments for a just transition, creating jobs and a better life for many people, and the EU must stop subsidising the fossil industry.

On the issue of securing good jobs, the EU’s prioritising of capital and competition comes at the expense of job quality – the recent fight around the platform work directive is a case in point. We also want to change the rules around public procurement, where securing the lowest price has been made the key condition for making procurements, something that leads to social dumping. Alongside the European trade unions, we are calling for a new kind of procurement where social clauses and collective bargaining are made the key factors.

Finally, on the cost of living, we can see that inflation has led to more poverty and increased social injustice, while at the same time the big companies in Sweden are making historic profits. We need to build a different kind of society, one that works for all the people, not just for a few. One reason we have a housing crisis in Sweden – which is being caused by a shortage in apartments and increasing rents – is because housing is deemed to be just another commodity on the European market, preventing us from using state aid to build new housing and forcing public housing companies to operate under market rules.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

Northern Lights? Nordic lessons for the just transition

For many, Scandinavia is synonymous with social democracy, high union density, public ownership, and progressive governments inclined to climate action and sustainable policies. A recent study tour to Norway and Denmark, hosted by Rosa Luxemburg Foundation’s New York and Brussels offices, found that both countries still struggle with entrenched interests – local and international – holding back a genuine “just transition”.

The five-day study tour in October brought ten experts – legislators, researchers, and activists – from North America and Europe to Norway and Denmark. It was the aim of the tour to explore the renewable energy landscape in Scandinavia, and to exchange experiences from both sides of the Atlantic around building a “just transition”: a greening of the economy in a fair and inclusive manner that creates decent work opportunities and leaves no one behind.

Taking as its starting point the role and strategies of left parties, trade unions and climate justice groups in the Nordic region, the visit also looked at the larger challenges, including the regional and global dynamics surrounding a green transition. The results were challenging, and sometimes inspiring, but contradictory.

Leading on renewables?

Denmark and Norway are rightly seen as world leaders on renewable energy, but this status is riddled with incongruities. While Norway’s hydro sector supplies over 99 percent of the country’s electricity needs and is more than 90 percent state-owned, wind power faces significant public opposition. Unlike hydro, onshore wind generation in Norway is 75 percent privately owned, largely exported for profit, and pays lower taxes than other energy sectors. Offshore wind production – which faces less criticism – mostly serves to electrify Norwegian oil and gas platforms.

Opposition to onshore wind has even emerged within Norway’s environmental movement and indigenous Sámi population, most notably around the Fosen wind farm in central Norway. In October 2021, Norway’s Supreme Court ruled the wind farm had been built in clear violation of the Sámi people’s human rights, but the government has failed to take any action. Both environmental groups and the Sámi people continue to protest against the wind farm, and the case has only helped deepen public opposition to wind energy in the country.

Read the full report at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office or Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - New York Office. 

Denmark to hold early elections as Social Democrats move right

On November 1, Denmark will vote, seven months ahead of schedule. Polls show left and right blocs almost neck-and-neck, and the risk of an outright win for the right-wing remains real. However, with Social Democratic Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen seeking to hold onto power through an unlikely coalition across the middle, a rightwards shift seems inevitable.

The early election was called when the Social Liberals, one of three smaller parties propping up the Social Democrat minority government, threatened a no-confidence motion after damaging criticisms in a report on the government’s handling of a Covid-19 mutation on Danish mink farms in 2020.

Frederiksen, widely applauded for her handling of the Covid pandemic, faced accusations of arrogance and abuse of power over the government’s cull of all 17 million of the country’s farmed mink. The official investigation revealed no legal basis for the cull, and while the Prime Minister avoided sanction, it has damaged her popularity.

Denmark is dominated by bloc politics and coalition governments, and both major political blocs – red (left) and blue (right) – currently sit even in the polls, with a slight advantage to the red bloc. With no obvious winner, two new parties – one nominally centrist, the other on the right – may decide the outcome.

Unusually, Frederiksen has called on centrist and centre-right parties to join her in a broad coalition across the political middle ground, to find "joint solutions to the country's major challenges”. While the Social Liberals, the Socialist People’s Party and the Moderates agree, the leaders of the two traditional opposition parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, have rejected the idea.

The proposal is also opposed by parties on the far-right, and by the radical left Red-Green Alliance, another of the parties that has kept the government in power for the last three years. Indeed, Frederiksen’s proposed coalition is also deliberately designed to diminish left-wing influence on government, and to shift Danish politics further to the right.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

Historic Copenhagen budget leaves Social Democrats out in the cold

Duroyan Fertl interviews Line Barfod, a former Enhedslisten MP and the current Mayor for Technical and Environmental affairs on Copenhagen Council.

On September 9, the 2023 budget for the City of Copenhagen was agreed in historic circumstances. For the first time in a century, Denmark’s Social Democratic Party – which has long treated Copenhagen as its crown jewel – was outside the deal. Instead, radical left party Enhedslisten (the “Red-Green Alliance”) took the lead in budget negotiations, delivering robust funding for social welfare and the climate, with support from parties of the centre, right and even far-right.

In November 2021 municipal elections, Enhedslisten eclipsed the Social Democrats in Copenhagen for the first time, taking a quarter of the vote. In the negotiations that followed, however, the Social Democrats held on to the coveted position of Lord Mayor thanks to support from the right-wing parties. Enhedslisten took responsibility for the Technical and Environmental, and Social Affairs, portfolios instead.

But in negotiations for the first budget since that vote, the Social Democrats, along with the Socialist People’s Party (or “Green Left”, as it now wants to be known internationally), found themselves outside the room, as their budget proposal failed to win support. Instead, Enhedslisten brokered a budget agreement that secured significant climate and welfare spending while bridging the political divide.

Rather controversially, Enhedslisten’s budget agreement was built on the support, not only of the political centre, but of parties of the right and even the extreme right, with the Danish People’s Party and even more radical Nye Borgelige (the “New Right”) both participating in negotiations and signing up to the agreement.

Being cut out of the budget is yet another massive defeat for Lord Mayor Sophie Hæstorp Andersen and the Social Democrats in Copenhagen, but what does the deal mean for Enhedslisten, and for the broader political situation in Denmark, where early elections will be held on 1 November?

The new 2023 budget agreement is a pretty big departure from the norm, and has left quite a few people scratching their heads. Why did Enhedslisten make a deal with parties of the centre and right, rather than with what many would consider your more natural allies on the left wing, the Social Democrats or Socialist People’s Party?

This is the first time ever in Copenhagen that the Lord Mayor, a social democrat, is not part of the budget, but we had thought the whole way through negotiations that we would make a budget with the Social Democrats. However, after four days of negotiations they still hadn’t delivered anything on climate, and only very little on welfare – both issues that we had said from the start were our key areas. This was particularly the case on the matter of the climate crisis – we simply couldn’t agree the budget unless we had agreement on something that really made a difference for the climate.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

„Wir müssen mit Dänemark zusammenarbeiten, aber gleichberechtigter“

Duroyan Fertl interviewt Aaja Chemnitz Larsen, Mitglied des dänischen Parlaments für Inuit Ataqatigiit

In Kalaallit Nunaat (Grönland) errang die linke Partei Inuit Ataqatigiit („Volksgemeinschaft“) bei den Wahlen im vergangenen Jahr einen Erdrutschsieg und gewann 37 Prozent der Stimmen und 12 der 31 Sitze im Inatsisartut (Parlament Grönlands).

Das vergangene Jahr erwies sich jedoch als schwierig und führte zu einem Wechsel der Koalitionspartner. Unterdessen steht das Land vor zahlreichen Herausforderungen, da es einen Ausgleich zwischen wirtschaftlicher Entwicklung und sozialer Gerechtigkeit und Maßnahmen in den Bereichen Klimawandel und Umweltschutz herstellen muss und mit einer sich verändernden globalen Sicherheitslage konfrontiert ist, wobei Dänemark noch immer die Kontrolle über die auswärtigen Beziehungen und die Verteidigung hat.

Ihre Partei, die Inuit Ataqatigiit (IA), gewann im April letzten Jahres die vorgezogenen Wahlen in Grönland. Welche Erfahrungen hat die IA als linke Regierungspartei seither gemacht?

Der Schwerpunkt unserer nun bereits beinahe einjährigen Tätigkeit lag auf der Zusammenarbeit mit unseren Koalitionspartnern der Partei Naleraq, einer noch weiter links angesiedelten Partei als wir, die sich aber auch sehr stark auf die Unabhängigkeit Grönlands konzentrierte und dies viel früher tat als wir bei der IA.

Es ist normal, dass sich die grönländische Bevölkerung über die Unabhängigkeit Gedanken macht – wenn man sich die Geschichte anschaut, sieht man, dass wir schon 1953 unabhängig werden hätten können, als wir (zumindest auf dem Papier) mit Dänemark gleichberechtigt wurden.

Der Schwerpunkt lag sehr auf der Unabhängigkeit und darauf, wie wir in der Außenpolitik eine andere Rolle spielen können. Wir haben eine Redewendung: „Nichts über uns ohne uns“, was bedeutet, dass jede Diskussion über Grönland oder die Arktis im dänischen Parlament (das über unsere Außenpolitik verfügt) mit grönländischer Beteiligung geschehen sollte.

Wir haben uns also sehr auf diese Themen konzentriert. Die Zusammenarbeit mit der Naleraq verlief nicht immer reibungslos. Es war irgendwie chaotisch und es gab einen ziemlich großen internen Fokus auf diese Zusammenarbeit.

Sie haben kürzlich die Koalitionspartner gewechselt, von der Naleraq zur sozialdemokratischen Partei Siumut. Gab es andere politische Gründe für einen Wechsel der Koalitionspartner oder war es vor allem die Frage der Unabhängigkeit?

Ich denke, es ging vor allem um die Haltung gegenüber Dänemark. Ich denke, dass sowohl die Siumut als auch die IA verstehen, dass wir mit Dänemark zusammenarbeiten müssen, aber wir müssen dies auf viel gleichberechtigtere Weise tun.

Wir müssen eine gute Zusammenarbeit sicherstellen und respektvoll miteinander sprechen. Dies ist für uns bei der Inuit Ataqatigiit sehr natürlich, aber nicht unbedingt für die Naleraq.

Aus diesem Grund sind die auswärtigen Angelegenheiten – insbesondere die Beziehungen zu Dänemark, aber auch zu den USA – etwas, das in den grönländischen Zeitungen viele Schlagzeilen gemacht hat.

Jetzt sind wir also zur Siumut als Koalitionspartner gewechselt. Hoffentlich können wir uns jetzt viel mehr auf die außenpolitischen Fragen konzentrieren, mit denen wir uns befassen müssen.

Lesen Sie den vollständigen Artikel auf der Website der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung - Büro Brüssel.

“We need to collaborate with Denmark, but in a more equal way”

Duroyan Fertl interviews Aaja Chemnitz Larsen, Member of the Danish Parliament for Inuit Ataqatigiit.

In Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland), the radical left party, Inuit Ataqatigiit (‘Community of the People’) won a landslide election last year, taking 37 percent of the vote and 12 of the 31 seats in the Inatsisartut (Greenlandic parliament). The past year has proved difficult, however, leading to a change in coalition partners. Meanwhile the country faces multiple challenges, balancing economic development and social justice with action on climate change and environmental protection, and an evolving global security situation, where Denmark still controls all foreign affairs and defence powers.

Your party, Inuit Ataqatigiit (IA), won Greenland’s snap elections in April last year. What have IA’s experiences as a left party in government been over this time?

The main focus for the nearly a year was on collaborating with our coalition partners Naleraq, which is a party even more left-wing than us but which also very much focused on achieving independence for Greenland and doing so much sooner than for us at IA.

Independence is, of course, something that is natural for the people of Greenland to think about - looking at history you can see that we could have been independent already in 1953 when we became an equal party (at least on paper) with Denmark.

The focus has been very much on independence, as well as on how we can play a different role in foreign affairs. We have a saying: “nothing about us without us”, meaning that every time something concerning Greenland or the Arctic is being discussed in the Danish parliament (which has authority over our foreign affairs) it should be with Greenlandic involvement.

So, we have been focusing very much on these issues. It hasn’t always been a smooth ride for us with Naleraq. It’s been kind of chaotic and there’s been quite an internal focus, I would say, on this collaboration.

You recently changed coalition partners, from Naleraq to the social democratic party, Siumut. Were there other policy reasons for changing coalition partners, or was it mainly the independence issue?

I think it was mostly about the attitude towards Denmark. I think both for Siumut and for IA we understand that we need to collaborate with Denmark, but we need to do it in a much more equal way.

We need to make sure that we have a good collaboration and talk respectfully to each other. This is something that is very natural for us in Inuit Ataqatigiit but not necessarily for Naleraq.

For this reason, foreign affairs - especially the relationship towards Denmark, but also towards the United States - is something that has been filling a lot of headlines in the Greenlandic newspapers.

So now we have changed to Siumut as a coalition partner. Hopefully now we’ll be able to focus much more on the external political issues that we need to deal with.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

Climate Neutrality and Democratic Ownership after COVID

On 21 October, the Copenhagen-based Democracy in Europe Organisation (DEO), along with the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung Brussels Office, hosted a forum on the challenges of a socially just transition to clean energy, with former Copenhagen City councillor Ulrik Kohl. Kohl, a researcher on community energy in the Nordic countries and Southeast Europe with Malmö University and Roskilde University, spoke about the role of the left and communities in organising grassroots, working class alternatives to the capitalist Green Deal.

The idea of a ‘Green Deal’, or ‘Green New Deal’, has increasingly been seen as a panacea for the unfolding climate crisis. Since the outbreak of the Covid-19, it has also been presented as a solution to the global health and economic crises unfolding in the wake of the pandemic. In Europe, the call for an ‘EU Green Deal’ emerged in 2019, centring around a target of European Union carbon neutrality by 2050. This year EU leaders made this a binding target, setting a further preliminary greenhouse gas emissions reduction target of at least 55% by 2030 (compared to 1990 levels).

Such a rapid transition to green energy and climate neutrality is an urgent necessity, but while welcome, the promised reductions have also been criticised as inadequate. Worse yet, they are unlikely to be met. The reliance on market mechanisms and emissions trading has proved worse than useless, cuts foreshadowed in 2015’s Paris Agreement have simply not eventuated, and without a major change in approach, the latest pledges by world governments at the COP26 summit in Glasgow are likely to go the same way.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

Denmark: Local election set-back for Social Democrats; wins for the left and centre-right

Denmark’s local elections have delivered a stark warning to the governing Social Democrats, and handed big wins to both the far-left and the centre-right, amidst an historically low voter turn-out.

Denmark’s municipal and regional elections, held on November 16, brought mixed results across the political spectrum. The biggest wins came for the centre-right Conservatives and the far left’s Enhedslisten (the “Red-Green Alliance”), but the stand-out story is the disastrous result for the governing Social Democrats. Poor results across the country and in the capital are a warning to Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen that the political ground has shifted beneath her government as she faces revelations of political impropriety, a new wave of Covid-19, and simmering discontent over issues both local and crossing the local-national divide, such as the mishandling of healthcare and childcare.

Already navigating an unfolding scandal over the forced closure of Denmark’s mink industry after a Covid-19 outbreak last year, the pandemic’s resurgence has brought into sharp relief government mismanagement of the recent nurse’s strike. Underpaid and under-resourced, nurses rejected a pay offer that fell short of their demands, only to have it foisted on them when the government legislated an end to negotiations. There are fears that future waves of the virus could drive an exodus of nurses and break the back of a public health system run by underfunded regional government. Similar issues of pay and recruitment plague the childcare sector, which is administered at a municipal level.

While the Social Democrats remained the largest party in local elections, as they have been for over 100 years, there were heavy losses across the country, with retreats in 70 of the 98 council areas. The damage was most obvious in the party’s urban heartlands, and in the four largest cities (Copenhagen, Aarhus, Odense and Aalborg) support dropped by over 10 percent. The result was worsened by a record low turnout nation-wide - the third lowest in a century at just 67.2 percent - that reached its nadir in many urban working class areas. The worst participation rate came in the area around Tingbjerg, Copenhagen, where only one in three of those eligible cast their vote.

It was in Copenhagen, too, where the Social Democrats suffered their greatest and most symbolic defeat. After 112 years, they are no longer the most voted-for party on Copenhagen Council, slumping to just 17.3 percent support. They were overtaken by the radical left party Enhedslisten, topping the polls for the first time with a record 24.6 percent - nearly a quarter of the electorate. As well as taking the party vote, Enhedslisten’s lead candidate, Line Barfod, took the most direct candidate votes.

The Copenhagen result has several causes, but a key theme was development, with the city caught in the grip of a housing crisis, fuelled by housing speculation and development firms such as Blackstone. The market having failed to fix the crisis, the Social Democrat-run council and previous liberal government cooked up a controversial scheme to create an artificial island, “Lynetteholmen” in Copenhagen harbour to house 35,000 new residents, funded through loans to be paid off through the sale of public land.

The project’s potential traffic congestion alone is astounding: it would require transporting 80 million tonnes of soil through the city - some 350 truck journeys per day. The climate and environmental impact would be disastrous, and - rather than making housing more affordable - the initiative will create a new market for private real estate speculation. Lynetteholmen faces considerable opposition from local communities, climate and environment NGOs, and affordable housing advocates, but approval was rammed through the national parliament by the Social Democrats and the right, and given to development company By & Havn (“City & Port”) to implement.

A similar issue emerged in Copenhagen’s south, where the planned destruction and development of one of the city’s very few extensive nature areas - Amager Fælled, which hosts deer, endangered salamander, lark nests and other wildlife - was met with fierce resistance and a popular protest movement. Ostensibly, the project - also tendered to By & Havn - was to meet the city’s growing housing needs, but again the reality does not match the rhetoric. In both cases, the intersection of housing, climate and the environment played to the strengths of the left, and Enhedslisten in particular.

Finally, some more specific issues have hurt the Social Democrats, with former Lord Mayor - and vice president of the party - Frank Jensen being forced to resign last year after multiple sexual harassment allegations, and an attempt to fob off the issue by offering to be “part of the solution” to the problems he had caused. As a small wave of MeToo scandals hit the country’s political elite, Jensen was forced to resign his posts, and his replacement at council level has failed to impress.

The result in Copenhagen was an outstanding success for Enhedslisten, tapping popular support for action on the climate emergency and housing affordability, and from young voters. Despite its historic result and largest-party status - which would traditionally afford it the position of Lord Mayor - Enhedslisten was locked out when the Social Democrats formed a block with the right-wing parties to install their candidate Sophie Hæstorp Andersen instead. Reflecting the party’s new size, Enhedslisten nonetheless took both the Environment and Technical, and Social Affairs, deputy mayor portfolios on council.

Enhedslisten also saw success on Denmark’s “summer isle”, Bornholm, taking 23.1 percent on the back of a 17 percent swing among the islands 40,000 residents. The ruling Social Democrats and liberal party Venstre had pushed through a disastrous municipal budget that slashed social security while splurging millions on a new town hall. Enhedslisten - led by deputy mayor Morten Riis - were cut out of the decision-making, and quickly became the face of opposition. As in Copenhagen, however, the numbers weren’t there for a left mayor, and Enhedslisten lent its support to the Conservatives for the role, breaking the Venstre-Social Democrats duopoly and winning a re-negotiation of the budget.

This election saw Enhedslisten’s greatest results at the municipal level in its 32 year history. It elected 114 councillors on 68 councils - a slight drop on 2017 - but reached a new high in overall support, 7.3 percent nationwide. The results in Copenhagen and Bornholm were a high water mark, making a serious statement about the party’s role in Danish politics and strengthening its negotiation position in the national parliament. Unlike the Socialist People’s Party, however, which held onto its single mayor on the island of Langeland, Enhedslisten failed to win the position of mayor in any council, with parties of both right and “left” uniting against it.

A Blue Denmark?

A struggle of a different kind unfolded on the right wing of Danish politics, with liberal party Venstre suffering modest setbacks and the Conservative Peoples Party earning the largest swing and most impressive gains of any party. Meanwhile, the extreme right saw a splintering, as the Danish People Party lost more than half its votes, and its new, more pro-market, competitor on the right fringe, Nye Borgerlige (“New Right”) failing to fully capitalise. The results continue an emerging trend of the Conservative party leading the charge on Denmark’s political right.

Venstre had anticipated worse losses than it experienced, and its poor results paled in comparison to those of its main opponent, the Social Democrats. Some losses were self-inflicted, however, such as in Tønder, where internal discontent led a large part of the local branch to run its own list of candidates, costing Venstre the mayoral post in the area. As a result, the Schleswig Party - representing the German-speaking minority in southern Denmark - took the helm of the council for the first time since 1946.

The biggest winner was the Conservative Peoples Party, which saw a swing of 6.4 percent (over 10 percent in 15 councils) and improved support in nearly every council area. The party took over the position of mayor in several councils, including Bornholm and in Kolding, where the Socialist People’s Party’s former chairman and foreign minister, Villy Søvndal - infamous for his role in the sale of the state energy company DONG - gifted the Conservatives the mayor’s seat in order to keep Venstre out.

Despite this, the Conservatives suffered a humiliation in their stronghold of Frederiksberg - a wealthy enclave within Copenhagen with its own council. Up until now, it had been the Conservative’s crown jewel - under their control for 112 years - but a clever campaign, and a strong left vote (including a surge in support for Enhedslisten, which secured second spot with 17.5 percent, ahead of the Social Democrats) gave the area a social democratic mayor for the first time.

Further to the right, a different drama was being played out. The far right populist Danish Peoples Party lost more than half its votes and 133 seats, losing support in every single municipality. The party, which once polled over 20 percent, dropped from 8.7 percent in 2017 to only 4.1 percent, prompting national leader Kristian Thulesen Dahl to announce his resignation and call a special party congress. With internal squabbling and no obvious replacement, and leading figures in the party facing legal and criminal investigations, the party appears to be in a state of deepening crisis.

Even so, perhaps only half of the support lost by the Danish People's Party went to its more extreme rival Nye Borgerlige, in the first serious local challenge between the two. Nye Borgerlige increased its representation by 63 seats, but many disaffected Danish People’s Party voters seem to have stayed home, or lent their support to the Conservatives or Venstre. Some may also have supported the Social Democrats, who have adopted many of the xenophobic immigration and social policies of the far right.

Ultimately, however, the main story remains the bloody lip Danish voters have delivered to the government. Before summer, it looked unassailable, coolly managing the pandemic crisis through sensible lockdown measures and Keynesian supports to workers and business that made life difficult for rivals on both sides. Adopting a far-right position on migration and refugees, it removed the issue as a political threat - breaching the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which Denmark was the first signatory, in a cynical move to maintain electoral support.

This overall strategy gave the Social Democrats a powerful position at the very centre of Danish politics, capable of forming majorities to both the right and left. However, it also fed a tendency towards arrogance and overreach reflected in the mishandled mink scandal, the nurses strike, and development projects in Copenhagen. These latest results show that in politics, such moments are fleeting, and change is coming from both a restored conservative right, and from a re-energised radical left, that has a project for change.

Capitalism is not green: you can't solve the climate crisis without changing the system

This is the text of a speech given on behalf of Sinn Féin at the conference "O Capitalismo não é verde. Uma visão alternativa sobre as alterações climáticas" ("Capitalism is not green - an alternative view on climate change"), held on 13 September 2019 in Lisbon, Portugal. It was organised by the Portuguese Communist Party and the European United Left/ Nordic Green Left in the European Parliament.

The challenge of climate change is unprecedented, transcending national borders. I won’t tell you what you already know, but the earth is - literally - on fire. Massive fires are engulfing the world, the ice is melting and biodiversity loss is hitting record levels. Microplastics are now throughout our food chain, they are in the water we drink - even in the rain itself. The ecology of our entire planet is threatened with irretrievable mutilation.

We need urgent, radical actions - the rapid, far-reaching reorganisation of industry, energy, transport, and mass consumption patterns, and the massive transfer of clean technology to developing countries. There is just one problem: these actions are impossible under Capitalism.

Attempts to make climate a global political priority have been repeatedly led astray by corporate interests. The global climate agreements, from Kyoto to Paris, have woefully inadequate targets, and promote corporate-friendly, market-based mechanisms that simply do not work. Carbon markets don’t cut emissions, but they do create tradable “rights” to pollute, protecting the perverse incentive to profit off pollution.

When we aren’t being sold dodgy emissions markets and carbon offset “indulgences” for our climate sins, we are offered “green consumption” - electric cars, reusable plastic coffee cups, long-life light bulbs. This is also the underlying approach of most mainstream environmental groups and the major Greens parties. Worse, this consensus has been accepted by most environmental activists.

But leaving things to the market is a recipe for disaster. The internal logic of Capitalism is to constantly seek out new opportunities for profit - whatever the social or environmental cost. For capitalists, the climate crisis is less a threat than it is an opportunity for new markets and new profits. And even if the climate threat were solved, the massive over-exploitation of the planet would continue, and the threats to the global ecosystem would deepen.

So, no, Capitalism cannot be green. It is like the proverbial scorpion, that, after stinging the frog that was carrying him across the river on its back, condemning them both to death, could only offer in its defence: “I could not help myself. It is my nature.”

Despite becoming only the second country in the world to declare a climate emergency earlier this year, the Irish Government remains the third worst climate performer in the EU. While 25 percent of its electricity comes from wind, Ireland continues to support the fossil fuel industry, and imposes a regressive carbon tax that shifts the costs of corporate pollution onto ordinary working people.

The Irish government has urged people to “lead by example” by buying electric cars, but for the vast majority of working people, this is a fantasy. Meanwhile, public transport in Ireland - which barely exists outside of Dublin - is facing one cut after another. And now, with the EU’s Railway Package, we are facing further privatisation, removing a vital sector from public hands.

It’s not all negative, of course. In May a delegation of Irish civil servants visited Copenhagen to research cycleways. Dublin has four new - albeit separate and disconnected - Climate Action Plans, each run by a different council, and some of the initiatives in these Plans are good. The most innovative is to build Ireland’s largest district heating system by piping excess industrial heat from Poolbeg peninsular to warm homes. There are also plans to install solar panels on all new public housing, adaptation plans, and awareness raising, but this is all just a drop in the ocean.

Another idea now gaining support in Ireland and elsewhere is to plant trees to draw down carbon. But Ireland already has forest plantations. The countryside is covered in countless hectares of fast-growing Sitka spruce - an invasive, non-native species. These plantations are dead zones - eerily quiet, without bird or animal life. They are green deserts, which exist solely as a cash crop. Many farmers want to invest in mixed plantations of native, broad-leaf species, but the supports available to Sitka plantations are not yet available for more sustainable options.

Onshore fracking was banned in most of Ireland two years ago, but in the six counties still under British rule there are plans to start operations, right next to the border, a move that would effectively render any ban null and void.

Earlier this year, Sinn Féin helped push a Climate Emergency Bill through the Dáil, the national parliament. It would have made Ireland the fifth country in the world to ban oil and gas exploration by halting the issuing of new licences.

But because the Bill may have required the use of public money, the government used a procedural technicality to effectively freeze the legislation. Around the same time, it was revealed that a key advisor to the Taoiseach (Irish prime minister) had held secret meetings with a lobbyist for the oil sector.

Unfortunately, while they are formally better on fossil fuels, the Irish Greens also still accept the logic of the market. But because they are called “Green”, people still look to them for the answers. The challenge now is to change that conversation.

A further weakness of the Western ecological movement is its failure to put, not just Capitalism, but the issue of Imperialism, at the centre of its analysis. Capitalism has always been a global system, transferring wealth from developing countries to the nations at the centre of world capitalism, whether by direct force or commerce. The arms industry, and wars for oil and other resources, are everyday reminders of this.

So too are the vast palm oil plantations in developing countries, and the recent EU-Mercosur trade deal. The Mercosur deal encouraged the apocalyptic fires in the Amazon by providing an incentive to clear more land for cheap beef and soy for the EU. But it is also about expanding the market for German cars - securing short-term profits for a dirty manufacturing sector already entering recession.

Mercosur has an Irish angle too. Cheap beef from Brazil flooding into the EU market will undercut more sustainably produced Irish beef. It will drive Irish beef farmers out of business, destroying rural society in Brazil and Ireland, and damaging the environment as well as the development of sustainable agriculture globally.

Why? Because the scorpion only cares about profits.

The largest power station in Ireland runs almost entirely on coal from Colombia. Most of this coal is from the Cerrejon mine, where trade union leaders and environmental and indigenous activists are regularly murdered. The Irish nationally-owned energy corporation, the Electricity Supply Board, also has massive investments in coal mines in the Philippines, where local activists are also being murdered.

The ruling classes in the Global North - including the EU - have an historic debt for the exploitation and destruction of the developing world, a debt which is growing every day. Any climate action and transition to “green jobs” must therefore have climate justice, repaying this global debt, at its heart, or it will be nothing but a new “Green Imperialism”.

In the EU, we are caught in a capitalist web, with a failed Emissions Trading Scheme, a stifling Energy Treaty, and state aid and competition rules that restrict urgent direct action by national governments. We are now hearing more and more talk of a “green deal” and “green growth”. At best, this is a half-hearted attempt at green washing; at worst, it is cover for business as usual.

Brexit will make things worse too - a new tax on heavy polluters, to replace the already ineffective EU ETS in Britain after Brexit, will see a reduction to nearly half the EU carbon market price.

The situation seems so daunting, many are beginning to question if we can succeed. A recent article in the New Yorker put it plainly, arguing “The climate apocalypse is coming. To prepare for it, we need to admit that we can’t prevent it.” There you have it! Behind all the greenwashing, all the electric cars, lightbulbs, reusable coffee cups and other junk, this is what the “green capitalists” and “progressive liberals” have to offer.

They can imagine the end of the species, but they can’t imagine the end of Capitalism.

Those of us who can imagine it must do more than just imagine. It is inspiring today to see and hear about local initiatives showing that there are alternatives ways of doing things. We must connect our ambitions to stop climate change to the reality on the ground - to show people that genuine change is possible, and how it will impact, and can improve, their daily life. This isn’t enough, of course, but it shows there is a way, that the technology and know-how exists - if there is the political will.

But we must do still more.

I’m not going to rattle off numbers about greenhouse gases, and targets and so on, but I do want to give you one number. 14 months. In November 2020, the 26th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC - or “COP26” - is scheduled to take place in Glasgow. If the EU, US, and other Western countries are to act meaningfully on climate, and begin the necessary policy processes, the political point of no return will effectively be at COP26.

Acting in a decade will be too late. For this reason, we should also work to build the largest possible popular mobilisation around COP26 next year. Here in Europe, in the historical cradle of Capitalism and Imperialism, we have an opportunity - and a duty - to make this fight winnable. 

The new climate movement is already having its internal debates about whether you can solve the climate crisis without changing the system, or if a greener Capitalism is enough. The left needs to join in and help strengthen this movement, as well as the anti-Capitalist position in that movement.

We can’t replace Capitalism tomorrow, but we can build real alternatives in our communities that bring people together, giving them a glimpse of what a sustainable, socialist, society could look like. At the same time, we can help bring the largest number of people onto the streets, forcing governments to act, even against their will. And with these people we can build a larger political movement for change.

And remember, we are facing a battle - not just for human civilisation (such as it is) - but for billions of other species on this small blue, fragile, planet as well. We have no option other than to win.

Germany: G7 meets amid mass protests

Schloß Elmau, venue of the G7 summit

Tens of thousands of anti-capitalist, environmental and social justice activists have taken to the streets and the country roads of Bavaria to protest the Group of Seven (G7) nations summit, which took place on June 7 and 8 in a secluded castle in the German Alps.

On June 4, over 35,000 demonstrators marched peacefully in the Bavarian capital Munich, protesting the destructive policies of the G7 industrialised nations – climate change, militarisation and NATO expansion in Europe, economic austerity and poverty, democracy-destroying free trade deals and more. 

Some protesters dressed as clowns, while others wore black or even traditional Bavarian lederhosen, and carried rainbow flags and banners bearing slogans such as “Stop the G7 now!”, "G7 go to hell" and “Revolution is the solution”.  

On June 8, another 8,000 protesters marched through the alpine resort town of Garmisch-Partenkirchen, a few hours south of Munich, in the shadow of Germany’s highest mountain, Zugspitze. 

The meeting between the leaders of the G7 nations – the United States, Britain, Canada, Italy, France, Japan and Germany – was held nearby at Schloss Elmau, a picturesque castle converted into a luxury hotel, at a cost of approximately US$350 million.

Over 22,000 police were deployed to protect the summit – the largest police operation in Bavarian history – and 17 kilometres of temporary fenceline was erected to keep protesters out.

Germany announces the phase-out of nuclear power

On May 30, the German government announced that all of Germany’s seventeen nuclear power stations would be permanently shut down by 2022.

Germany’s seven oldest nuclear power stations – temporarily switched off after public outcry and protests in the aftermath of the disaster in Fukushima – will remain offline, and will be permanently decommissioned.

An eighth plant – in northern Germany – is already offline because of technical problems, and will remain shut down for good.Six of the remaining 9 power stations will be shut down in 2021, and the final three will be turned off in 2022.

"It's definite: the latest end of the last three nuclear power plants is 2022," Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen told reporters. "There will be no clause for revision."

The announcement has been greeted with critical support from anti-nuclear and environmental organisations such as Greenpeace, who have maintained their call for an earlier phase out date of 2015.

The announcement is not an entirely new proposition, either. In 2001, the then coalition government of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the German Greens passed legislation to phase out nuclear power in Germany by the end of 2021.

Ecuador: Chevron found guilty of eco-vandalism

An Ecuadorian court handed down a landmark verdict in an 18-year case against international oil-giant Chevron on February 14.
 

The company was fined US$8.6 billion for polluting the Amazonian basin, and $900 million in costs.

The case — perhaps the biggest environmental case in history — was filed on behalf of around 30,000 peasants, farmers, and indigenous Ecuadorians who have suffered the ill-effects of Chevron’s toxic legacy.

At the heart of the case is the nearly 20 billion gallons of polluted water, oil and toxic waste released between 1972 and 1990 by oil company Texaco (now a part of Chevron) into the ecosystem in eastern Ecuador.

The pollution has caused thousands of deaths, cancers, birth defects and incalculable environmental damage — poisoning animals, plants and the water table — as well as huge economic loss.

So deadly has the impact been that it has been described as an “Amazonian Chernobyl”. In some affected areas, oil still oozes out of the polluted ground.

NSW power sell-off exposed as daylight robbery

Testimony to the NSW Upper House inquiry into the sale of the retail arm of NSW electricity has revealed that only a tiny fraction of the $5.3 billion price tag will reach the public purse, with billions of dollars eaten up by a number of “associated costs”.

These include nearly $1.5 billion in government funding for the new Cobbora coal mine north-east of Lithgow to ensure a cheap coal supply for energy producers, and a guaranteed further $1 billion in coal price subsidies to the private energy companies over the life of the mine.

In addition, the legal and administrative expenses for negotiating the deal amount an estimated $300 million alone.

While NSW Treasurer Eric Roozendaal has crowed that the sale would free taxpayers from future risk in the sector, the Inquiry has heard that this is far from the truth.

Treasury Secretary Michael Schur, who appeared before the inquiry on January 18, criticised the “Gentrader” model under which the sale took place, calling it a “second rate” model that retained future risk for NSW taxpayers.

Germany: Two party system unraveling

Coasting on the back of environmental protests and a hemorrhaging two-party system, the German Greens have sent shock waves through German politics, surging into the position of main opposition party for the first time.

The Greens, who were part of a coalition government with the Social Democratic Party (SPD) from 1998-2005 at the expense of many of the party’s principles, are benefiting from the unraveling of Germany’s tradition two-party system.

Nevertheless, the two major parties - the centre-right Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union coalition (CDU/ CSU) and the centre-left SPD - retain a monopoly over government in Europe’s biggest economy.

But the facade appears to be truly falling apart at last. Opinion polls in early October put the Greens on 24%, one point ahead of the SPD.

At the 2009 federal elections, the Greens scored 10% of the vote. The far-left Die Linke won 11.9%.

In recent polls, the governing CDU were at 32%, while their neoliberal fundamentalist Free Democratic Party (FDP) allies only reached 6%. Die Linke remained steady on 11%.

The Greens’ poll surge comes amid a rise in environmental and community protests.

Behind the coup attempt in Ecuador

The attempted coup d’etat in Ecuador on September 30 against the left-wing government of Rafael Correa, which was defeated by loyal troops and mass mobilisation of Correa’s supporters, underscores the turbulent history of that small Andean nation.

It also exposes the weaknesses of Ecuador’s revolutionary movement, which is part of a broader Latin American movement against US domination and for regional unity and social justice.

The coup attempt was led by small core of police and soldiers, whose rebellion was triggered by a public service law that cut some of their immediate benefits. This has led some commentators to assert that recent events were simply a wage dispute, rather than a coup attempt.

Correa’s 2006 election victory - supported by the country’s powerful social and indigenous movements - came after almost two decades of political turmoil. Government after government dragged the country deeper into debt and greater poverty.

Between 1998 and 2005, three elected presidents were overthrown by mass uprisings, led in large part by the main representative of the country’s 40% indigenous population, the indigenous federation CONAIE.

Correa - a former finance minister - won the 2006 poll on a platform of radical social change.

He promised to lead a “citizens’ revolution”, using Ecuador’s oil wealth to eradicate poverty, deepen grassroots democracy and build a “socialism of the 21st Century”. These promises echoed similar process under way in Venezuela and Bolivia.