Much ink has been spilled about the German political and economic demise from domestic and foreign contributors. This is the great thing about political scandals. These days where everybody involved (or not) gives a ton of interviews and spreads their very own narratives. Enough, usually, to keep printers busy for some time and newspaper sales up.
After a rather shameful end to our wracked coalition a few weeks ago, the spreading of narratives began. Among semi-honest reflections on what went wrong, we witnessed ardent justifications cleansing each party’s conduct in light of a sudden electoral campaign with fresh parliamentary elections in February. With minds yet to cool down from a heated governmental collapse, a second scandal occurred. A yet-to-be-identified whistle-blower published a paper that dominated the German public discourse from then on. This document, titled “D-Day Paper”, had been written toward the end of October and meticulously described how the Ampel coalition (then still existing) could be blown apart. Origins of this paper could be allocated to the FDP, the German liberal party, then still a member of said coalition. This is the political dynamite of the affair. This paper was not just written by some queer political opponent of the Ampel but was a suicide manual created by a governing party itself - quite an extraordinary end to an extraordinarily unsuccessful government.
This is the status quo. A country torn apart by electoral discourse that, almost collectively, has found a political scapegoat to blame for its deep dysfunctions.
However, I argue the handling of this paper and of governmental demise should be put aside by now. A lot has been complained about in the past, let's collect the scrambles now and look ahead.
Where Are We At?
Upon demise, Chancellor Scholz initiated the vote-of-confidence procedure on Monday 16th, which enabled the Federal President to dissolve the Bundestag and call for new elections.
Consequently, we have shifted from unruly governance to entering a sped-up electoral campaign that will lead to fresh elections in February. Therefore, we must focus on the discourse that emerged from the ashes of the dissolved coalition.
Parties had a brief time to present their political programs and documents that showcase the political Zeitgeist within which the electoral campaign will be conducted. The circumstances have rendered position-finding easy this time. Opposition parties that escaped crises uncontaminated over the last four years can now build their presentation on everything that went wrong, allegedly. Profiling themselves as everything that is anti-Ampel is en vogue - even if this is done in a manner destabilizing national unity and state structures statehood and promotes fierce discourse. Take tax breaks, for example. The opposition party CDU, which leads current polls by a margin, has made the reduction of income and corporate tax a cornerstone of their political program. The finance-ability of these bold measures is not mentioned in their manifesto for the next electoral term. The implementation of these measures would cost billions of Euros, leaving gaps in the national budget. Finance-ability could be obtained by easing the “debt brake,” which limits fresh national debt to 0.35 % of the GDP. The question of whether this brake should be eased has been a contentious policy over which the Ampel coalition repeatedly tripped. Reform of the brake has been proposed continuously by the Greens and Social Democrats. Reform of the brake may appear reasonable to You as it enables another source of funding for ambitious governmental projects such as tax cuts. To the CDU, however, it does not. Their strict rejection of an evaluation of reforming the debt brake shows little economic thought and rather political motivation. The CDU will not reform the debt brake to finance their projects because this topic has already been taken up by parties in the Ampel coalition. The anti-ample policy is justified to a certain extent but should not extend to further destabilizing the national budget to finance ludicrous tax cuts without considering their repercussions. Political condemnation is fine but should not endanger the quest of looking for the good of the country.
This is the discourse that emerged from governmental demise: a tendency to condemn everything that occurred during the reign of the Ampel coalition. Yes, the Ampel got the hefty demise it deserved. Deconstructive criticism from within and without has brought this government down. But now, the deed is done, and the government is wrecked. What appears to be stumbling is a continued hatred between former governmental parties themselves and also between them and the opposition. It appears that this coalition has scarred political discourse and entrenched positions.
A Hopeless Situation?
Although this sounds rather hopeless, one must consider broader consequences. A result of political entrenchment, at least, is the revival of an insufferably boring German political arena. Over the last two decades, we had nothing but an indistinctly uniform political menu, with parties being less distinguishable than Scholz from a slug. Sharp tongues may point out that this is a flaw of our great parliamentary democracy, where opposition is more of a hindrance to governance than an instrument for political advancement. The incentive for this is clear. With parties seldom reaching absolute majorities, openness in coalition-building is imperative. This means that any sharp edges sported during the electoral campaign are mitigated by the political reality of finding friends willing to govern together. Ideally, this means that any party., even the winner, is forced to compromise on some of its ideas, and a balanced government is formed. Not so ideally, this form of political representation points to the inevitable loss of identity and support any political party will incur once they start governing. All of a sudden, they bear shared responsibility, and this may make them lose their magic.
Also, and this is rather a superficial critique, uniformity and compromise-seeking do not necessarily let people rise to the top due to their unquestioned charisma, a feature German politicians from Merkel to Scholz were rather lacking.
The Zeitgeist, concludingly, of our political discourse points at conflict. It creates very contrary ways to resolve challenges ahead and emphasizes differences parties felt coming up among them during these unruly years. This could not be more different from the outset three years ago when optimism was governing among us. We had just gotten over this mean pandemic, with everything now pointing ahead, and used to feel invincible. We even saw our nation's cutest selfie being taken by leaders of the liberals and the greens. Differences could be sacrificed for the greater good, the departure from a frustrating status quo under Merkel. Who would have thought that reality could be so mean?
However, this conflict resulting from reality is, at the very least, reviving a politically uniform arena. The Zeitgeist is conflict - parliamentary debates can make emotions go up through the roof of our beautiful Bundestag these days, opposition parties can propose programs due to condemnation of Ampel policies, regardless of their economic feasibility. This conflict-keen culture within the strict framework of parliamentary democracy is not all bad, however. What it certainly will do is disrupt the uniform political discourse that we have become so accustomed to.
This article is trying to encapsulate the political chaos we are facing while not painting black everything around it. I have noticed this tendency, especially from foreign points of view.
German voters are now challenged to make up their minds during these holidays (or better afterward) and to rationally (re) position themselves on the political spectrum. And this time, their choice will entail consequences. Our political chaos sure looks terrible from the outset, but what we are steering toward may be a parliament that disputes views and sports fierce debaters. Our constitutional framework is strong, and adherence to constitutional norms is shared among every serious party. None of our democratic parties, as much as they despise each other, could seriously damage it. The AfD will not govern, although some queer tech billionaires from the US may wish so, and our far-left parties do not have a chance either.
Again, what we are steering toward are elections where the voters’ positioning on the spectrum between SPD, Greens, FPD, and CDU matters because we know that this time, their views genuinely resemble opposites. No more mixing-up, less compromising than in these last three years. This rather stubborn and entrenched positioning by the parties is healthy per se. It will, hopefully, prevent another triple coalition that is more fueled by idealism than by actual expectations to succeed. We still have some way until the elections on the 23rd of February. Much may change until then, and predictions made now may then be in vain. Lessons learned from three years of failure are surely translated to power-sharing. Whatever party remains victorious will better think twice about whom it will govern. And these choices are hopefully rational and policy-oriented.
We have been through a lot. Foreign views are unified in their perspective that Germany remains a deeply separated and ungovernable country. But behold and await the people's choice, wait how they will pick up the scrambles their politicians left them. The next government formed will have a clearer mandate and a stronger opposition to face. Disputes will exist and will constructively shape German politics.
After hitting rock bottom, the only way left is up. On November 6th, we hit rock bottom. Let's see what's next.
The opinions expressed within this article are solely the author’s and are not affiliated with either the Maastricht Diplomat or UNSA.
Comments