Angela Merkel has nothing to lose.
As she prepares to lead the country for a fourth consecutive term, the German chancellor now has the chance to make a difference for Europe in a way that could be her legacy.
Judy Dempsey
More from this author...The coalition negotiations between Merkel’s conservative bloc and the Social Democrats will not be easy. The atmosphere is hardly euphoric. Martin Schulz, the leader of the Social Democrats, is unlikely to retain that position for long. His lackluster performance at the party’s extraordinary congress on January 21, but also the miserable reception he received from the delegates, clearly confirmed his weak position. It was not he but Andrea Nahles, who represents the younger generation in the party and is a born political strategist, who swung the delegates around to joining yet another “grand coalition” with Merkel’s Christian Democrats and the Bavarian-based Christian Social Union.
Then there is the eternal sniping by Horst Seehofer, leader of the Christian Social Union. Whether nagging at Merkel or bad-mouthing the Social Democrats, the party is no asset when it comes to creating an atmosphere conducive for difficult coalition talks.
And there is Merkel herself. Although politically weakened by the federal election results and aware of the growing discontent inside her own party about her style of leadership, Merkel faces a major choice. She can either use her fourth term to try to reassure Europe and Germany that stability and predictability is the order of the day. Or she can throw caution to the wind by embracing Europe in such a way that even populists and Euroskeptics would be disarmed by such energy and creativity. That would be a Herculean legacy.
Merkel, in ways, has already gone down in the history books as leaving legacies of sorts. Her decision to close all of Germany’s nuclear power plants after the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe in 2011 took even her own party by surprise, not to mention industry chiefs who had been pleasantly surprised that Merkel had earlier done a U-turn on abolishing nuclear energy soon after becoming chancellor but were now confounded by her new decision. While winning plaudits from an anti-nuclear public and environmental lobbies, it turned out that Merkel had put in place little or no strategy for ensuring that Germany could speed up the introduction of renewable energy.
The connections between the wind- and sea-endowed north and the mountainous south were practically nonexistent. The storage for excess wind energy was not in place. Germany clung onto the brown coal mines in the eastern part of the country, not only for jobs but because Germany needed energy. The big chemical industries, such as BASF, stood solidly behind the controversial Nord Stream, and now Nord Stream 2, pipeline that will transmit Russian gas to Germany via the Baltic Sea. “We need that gas because we lost nuclear power,” one executive of a leading energy company told Carnegie Europe. “The Energywende (the energy change) had no strategy,” he added. That legacy is flawed.
Then Merkel won plaudits for her compassionate decision to throw open Germany’s borders to almost 1 million refugees fleeing the wars in Syria and Iraq in 2015. Again, there was almost no consultation with her party, with the coalition, or with the European Commission. At least she let the government in Vienna know.
Yet there was no big strategic plan put in place to register the refugees, to verify their papers, to house them, or to establish not only an integration program but a way in which they could enter the labor market. Thanks to the overwhelming support of civil society, which showed up the crass incompetence of the Berlin authorities, things got done.
But Merkel’s ill-thought-out “Wir können das schaffen” (We Can Do It) shook sections of the German public. The Alternative for Germany (AfD) was catapulted into the Bundestag, or federal parliament, on September 24, 2017, because of its anti-immigrant, anti-Islam, and anti-Europe stance. Indeed, the refugee issue is going to be one of the sticking points during the coalition negotiations. The Social Democrats understand why family reunification is necessary for the many single male refugees while the Christian Social Union is vehemently against such a policy.
This leaves Merkel with a legacy in waiting. It is Europe. The time when Merkel could assume that Europe could soldier on under her leadership, but under a very weak leadership in France, is over. French President Emmanuel Macron has radically changed the dynamics, the pace, and the ambition of the European Union. He and Merkel have two years to push through a much more integrated Europe, not only of the eurozone but other aspects, too.
Between now and 2020, the EU will have a new commission and a new European Parliament. And without hedging any bets about whether Germany’s grand coalition will see through its four-year term, and assuming that there are no major political earthquakes for the conservative bloc and the Social Democrats, the new German government will have the next two years to make a difference for Europe.
It’s going to require a new, strategic mind-set by Merkel—one that will communicate why Europe has to change and why EU leaders should be able to challenge the cynics and the populists. Macron is already embarking on that. Now it’s Merkel’s turn to join him.
Comments(5)
A more integrated Europe lead by Macron and Merkel is more control by the EU where individual countries loose thier identity. No difference to what Hitler did.
Europe has to change? However Europe is only one of many regions adrift in global finance, overseen now by the G20. And despite pleas, the G20 refuses to regulate global finance effectively - even after the biggest financial crisis in decades [2008]. An EU that is intent on disintegration cannot hope to have a voice on the global political stage that is listened to.
Though the main neonazionalist German politicians have been put aside after the recent elections, their leader A.Merkel still holds the keys of EU future. No matter what President E.Macron decides or does, Germany has to choose between two options: a) continuing the neonazionalist policy of a German EU (openly pursued since 2010 up to now) or b) changing course for a more equitable EU (giving breathe to battered states like Greece and the EU South in general - the so-called PIGS). Life offers the answer. However, no one shall trust neo-nazionalist politicians in Germany.
Any more whine for your little germanophobia or shall it be the full dose of self-righteousness? Where would "democracy" be if germans were being made the eternal deep pocket for this so-called Europe and the self-serving follies of other nations' political establishments which we could not even vote out of office? Or do you seriously want to insinuate that greek democracy has a greater worth than other nations' democracies? And swinging the Nazi bludgeon will no longer get you anywhere, either. It just makes you look like a small-minded ideological dogmatist.
Few things are worse for a politician that to act based on idea of leaving a legacy. This is how we got ACA, a Heritage Foundation variant, based on Friedman thought. Merkel and Macron, riding the two EU main engines, have a very limited time to clearly explain what the EU should be to 28 countries (27 in 2019): the only chance they have in the world of 2050 (it used to be 2100, but all is accelerating). First, their own electorate, as any EU project, regardless of how muck sense it makes, could trigger an exit. Second, watching Davos debates (Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania), it is not clear that the leadership of the other 25 countries (UK excluded) realize that it is time to severely limit their demands and understand that they have to be far more Europe focused, and be ready to do anything not to derail the two engines. It is not about limiting sovereignty, it is about not becoming a BRI backwater, or a census error compared with India’s UP state. It is what it is, the Swiss host didn’t even get correctly Lithuania’s geographic location, and couldn’t pronounce a name, would you expect more from remote hyper powers? It is also time for the main engines to clearly explain the consequences of leaving the EU. First and foremost, the EU is not just a purveyor of integration funds. The balance of these funds should be clearly tallied and converted into loans upon exit. Second, the four tenets of the EU should be made clearer to every single citizen, especially the consequences of losing them. Brexit has shown how difficult it is to negotiate trade deals, as well as the effect of the loss of freedom of movement (NHS personnel aside). It is also time for the EU to make sure that there will be no repeat of the 2008 financial crisis, easier said than done. It is not clear if this is achievable without limiting to a certain extent the economic sovereignty of member states. This kind of negative publicity might actually breakup the EU if it is not preceded by the understanding that there is such thing as a EU citizen. This was best articulated by Macron, but it should have originated at grass roots level, an educated citizenry, especially one exposed to a better education system, including their leaders. Along these lines it is inconceivable that one million refugees (from the Sykes-Picot space, which shows who should have actually dealt with it) have triggered the actual response. Hopefully something was learnt, as the near future could bring hundreds of millions.
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.