German Chancellor Angela Merkel with US President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron. Credit: John MacDougall /AFP / Getty

This is not the first intimation the world has had of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s political mortality — nor an isolated indication of the uncertainty that her sudden departure would leave behind.
That skiing accident, in 2014, when she broke her pelvis and was forced to slow down for a few weeks, was perhaps the earliest warning of her potential frailty. It also came at the worst possible time, arguably muffling Germany’s voice as the crisis in Ukraine was brewing.
Then there was the unusual difficulty the super-seasoned negotiator had in forming Germany’s current coalition after the last, 2017, election. Followed by those very public shaking fits — now apparently stabilised — which raised questions about whether her health would allow her to serve out her current, fourth, term. But the latest political developments in Germany could be the ones that really threaten her current retirement plans (bowing out gracefully at the next scheduled election in 2021).
These threats have nothing whatsoever to do with her own party, the Christian Democratic Union, or with her own personal authority — directly, at least. They concern an unexpected turn of events with her Social-Democrat coalition partner, the SPD.
Under pressure since its lacklustre showing at the last election, and in the European and several local elections since, the SPD has just elected its second leader in as many years; members have shunned the favoured contenders, and choosing a left-wing duo of Norbert Walter-Borjans and Saskia Esken instead.
If this only represented a sharp change of direction for the party, that would be one thing. But one of the defeated favourites was Deputy Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, who is also Finance minister in Merkel’s government. The vote amounted to an expression of no confidence in him personally, and in the SPD’s participation in the coalition.
Now, it is true that there are a couple of factors that may help Merkel fight another day. The first is that any co-leadership has a tendency to be less stable than the conventional kind. So she might just be able to wait it out — something she is pretty good at. (Meanwhile, the relatively new CDU leader, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, has insisted that her party stand by the coalition.) The second is that, because of its poor performance in 2017, the SPD is more of a junior partner than it was in either of Merkel’s previous two “grand coalition” governments — and it has not improved its electoral showings since.
On the other hand, however, renegotiating the terms of the coalition was a central plank of the new SPD leadership proposals, for which they now have a mandate, and the words of their co-leader, Walter-Borjans, sounded pretty uncompromising. “If the coalition partner then takes an obstructive approach to these new tasks, then you have to make a decision that it cannot continue.”
Being no strangers to the curse of coalitions, the new SPD leaders might also calculate that they are better severing their ties now than just before the next election. They might sense, too, that they are somehow swimming with a broader international tide — as the centre-left moves more Leftwards, and the centre-right moves to the Right. In this context, it would not only be the rejected candidates for the SPD who have run out of time, but also Angela Merkel and her colleagues on the centre-right.
If the coalition were to collapse, and if Angela Merkel were unable to find an alternative partner or partners — and the difficulties she experienced in 2017 suggest that it would be even harder this time around — the likely consequence would be a new election. Given that the Chancellor has already stated her intention to stand down in 2021, and that she has already passed the CDU leader’s baton to Krampf-Karrenbauer, an early election would almost certainly bring an early end to the Merkel era.
For all the periodic speculation, the departure of Angela Merkel from the Chancellery, whenever it comes, will be a huge shock for Germany. But the consequences would reverberate far beyond as well. It is hard to remember now the relatively timid public figure and almost apologetic campaigner who just squeaked into office in 2005. She has become not just a commanding figure in her homeland as Germany’s “Mutti”, but an immense force for moderation and international stability, too. Her absence would be felt at once — not least because there is no obvious successor.
Despite her best efforts to smoothe the transition, by passing the CDU leadership to her chosen successor last year, open jockeying for the succession has continued. Nor has Kramp-Karrenbauer — now not only party leader, but also defence minister since the departure of Ursula von der Leyen to the European Commission this autumn — done much to consolidate her authority. It is hard to see her leading the CDU into an election, let alone helping the party to win. Yet what looks like inevitable in-fighting will help the party even less.
An early indication of the gap Merkel’s departure will leave was the no-holds barred defence of Nato she made in a speech to the Bundestag in advance of the London Nato leaders’ meeting this week. For all the chiding of Germany (by the US and others) for its apparent dawdling on the way to meeting the 2% of GDP target for contributions to the alliance, Merkel offered her staunch support to the alliance, saying that “the preservation of Nato is in our fundamental interest, even more so than during the Cold War…For the time being, Europe can’t defend itself on its own — we are reliant on this transatlantic alliance.”
Her support was seen in part as a riposte to a statement the French President had made in a recent interview with the Economist, in which he described Nato as “brain-dead”. But it also highlighted another gap that will be left when Merkel departs. Since the UK voted to leave the European Union, there has been something of a reversion to the concept of the Franco-German “dynamo”, with the youthful Emmanuel Macron promoting himself as the thinker and leader of Europe’s future.
Merkel — who opposes Macron’s calls for the EU to develop its own military capability and has been at odds with him, too, on whether to grant the UK more time to complete the Brexit process — has been a restraining influence on Macron’s ambitions, and so helped preserve an equilibrium at the top of the EU. It is hard to suggest anyone else in the European firmament, least of all a new and untried German leader, who would have the gravitas or the confidence to restrain Macron. Yet his particular enthusiasms make him a potentially divisive figure.
Merkel’s positive response to the refugee crisis of 2015 — which was hers, and hers alone — can be seen as unwise in the sense that it alienated many of the more ‘frontline’ European countries.
Her confident “wir schaffen das” — we can do it — set the tone. Without her reassurance, and her stress on integration, the risk is that racist incidents and tensions increase. The assaults at Cologne station on New Year’s Eve 2015-16 and the country’s response — it was several days before the story broke, and then caused attitudes against immigration to harden and attacks on immigrants to increase — indicate what may lie just below the surface.
Merkel certainly paid a price at the polls for her attitude towards immigration. In terms of upholding “European values”, however, she offered a master-class in humanitarianism, which perhaps only she could have risked and has stoutly defended since.
This surely owed much to her background, which made her the ideal German leader for her time. A pastor’s daughter, who grew up and made her early career in East Germany, before joining the CDU and becoming a protegee of Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Merkel was able to span the two halves of re-united Germany as no other politician could have done. She was able to convince all Germans, especially in the former East, that the objective is economic fairness across the country.
Without her, that divide — in economic prospects and political sympathies — risks deepening resentment and allowing an ever more powerful right-wing Alternative für Deutschland to extend its appeal.
Merkel’s claim both to the moral high ground and to familiarity with the East German experience gives her a credibility that will be nigh-impossible for anyone to reproduce. German politics may be splintering, among shades of Left, Right and green, but Merkel was able to stay largely above the fray.
The crunch will come this weekend, when the new SPD leaders are confirmed at the party’s convention, and a vote of delegates will be taken on whether to stay in or leave the coalition. If the vote is to leave, Merkel will be faced with a choice as to agree to new, and probably protracted, negotiations, to soldier on as head of a minority government, or to resign.
Even if she survives, however, the developments of recent days have sounded an early warning. Not just for Germany; Europe and the world need to prepare for a world in which Angela Merkel’s steady hand is no longer on Germany’s helm.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe government have let us down badly, not listening to a broader science and SAGE have been nothing short of criminal.
PCR testing – is route of there still been a pandemic with high false positive numbers, SAGE know this. Funny how the NHS staff now use a lateral test, too many staff off with false positives.
COVID- death figures, nobody dies other diseases now.
Distorted data being provided.
SAGE – starting at the point that no one has immunity across the public. Vallance knows this isn’t true – let’s Dr Mike Yeadon prove this he calls Vallance a down right liar!
The pandemic won’t be over until SAGE say it over.
This goes further than not listening the situation we are in is a criminal act of TREASON!
The Sunday Times refers to its latest ‘investigation’ where “Insight asks whether the PM’s decision to prioritise the economy over ‘following the science’ led him to repeat the errors of the spring”.
It is hardly worth reading any further because the article fails to produce a shred of evidence that the PM prioritised the economy. Indeed, I am not sure how anyone could argue that blowing 3 x the annual budget of the NHS in just a few months is prioritising the economy, particularly when the end result is significantly longer waiting lists for health care and higher insolvencies and unemployment. We are now heavily in debt with nothing to show for it – hardly prioritising the economy.
If the PM failed to follow ‘the science’, it would be the significant scientific evidence that shows lockdowns don’t work. The medium and long term costs of lockdown far exceed any short term gains. Interesting that when the PM announced the second lockdown, the number of daily cases were around 22,000 which is almost exactly what they are today after a month of lockdown.
This nonsense has got to stop, but when you’ve got the mainstream media such as the ST & BBC publishing alarmist garbage it is hard to see where or when it will all end.
at least Unherd is able to employ some people capable of doing actual trustworthy, balanced journalism
Completely agree. I read the Times article thinking the same: they are just trying to maintain the argument that we didn’t do enough, sort of like trying to shift the overton window. This has the effect of making it harder to question the effects or necessity of the lockdowns, and gives the government an excuse not explain their reasoning. If everyone is shouting for more, then why explain yourself? Some of us want the government to make a logical, scientific case for it, not be given a free pass by vocal lockdown supporters.
Absolutely Peter.
What also scares me, apart from an article like that in The Times, is almost all the comments below it! They’re playing yo the audience for sure.
One lady said ‘but flu doesn’t have the potential to overwhelm the nhs’ I thought, every other winter that’s all over news!
Spiked has a great article taking apart the “insight” in more detail too btw.
Over and above the fact that any arm of the British state will always achieve precisely the opposite of that which it intends to achieve, it seems that these circuit breakers and lockdowns fail for the following reasons:
– You confine people to their homes, which are often cramped and have poor air circulation etc, making it easier for the virus to spread. In addition, some people break the law to gather in their homes to drink and watch football etc with other people.
– Everyone is compelled visit the same few shops, instead of at least some people going to some smaller, different shops.
– When confined to their homes, people get less vitamin D (not that there is much of this to be gained from the sun at this time of year)
– Face masks are a giant racket that only makes things worse.
I spend two hours minimum, every day, out dog walking. I never wear a hat and my vitamin D lever is ” off the Richter scale, according to my GP!
Apparently the ‘sun’ gets through even the thickest clouds! Astonishing n’est pas?
Yes, I’m out walking for quite long periods most days, without a hat. And I pop out for a few minutes whenever there is a bit of sun. I didn’t know that the sun gets through the thickest clouds, although I always assumed that to be outside was better than nothing. Whatever, I haven’t even had a cold for some years.
That is astonishing, since in winter you could probably walk about naked and not get enough vitamin D. In most of the British Isles the sun is too low to make much difference during winter time. Fortunately, you can easily up vitamin D levels with cheap supplements 10ug or 20ug will do fine. I take these every day from October to April. I have never had a cold since I started doing that.
Jolly Good
Yes, I think there maybe a mistake, but isn’t that heresy these days?
The Sunday Times appears to have lost all sense of balance, and the ability to analyse and report with objectivity. One D. Lawson was tub-thumping and disparaging Gupta et al a couple of issues back ,and last weekend was more of the same, but vaccine-themed, and this article follows a similar pattern.
It’s hard to determine whether the ST is Johnson-bashing, absolutely convinced of the truth of this, or indeed the whole thing is some form of “straw man” effort, designed to bolster the Government’s preferred narrative (aka lies and propaganda). I incline to the latter view.
It is no secret that the government is putting massive amounts of money into broadcast and print advertising, national and local for itself and “our NHS”; a variation on the Bevan “stuff their mouths with gold” approach. Having established such a dependency, I can’t see that many such media would risk the loss of the bribes by opposing that which they are simultaneously advertising.
The BBC is at present engaged in a government boot-licking exercise, most likely connected with appeasement to avoid any of the threatened penalties touted earlier in the year, pre-Covid.
Yes, someone pointed out a few months ago that the press and media are getting huge amounts of govt money for Covid information/propaganda. Another reason not give the MSM any of your money.
I’m afraid that the ST is drowning itself in the “Zeitgeist”. Apart from the nonsense promulgated in the main paper, the magazines are a tour-de-force in “wokery”, the politics of race (a BLM fan club) and the rest; all with a dash of conspicuous consumption and slack-jawed admiration of the wealthy and the latest crop of “celebs”. The only bit which is vaguely informative is the Business section, but for those of us not enjoying government PPE, track and trace, testing and other contract largesse, it makes for pretty grim reading.
The crusading Harold Evans days of exposing the Thalidomide Scandal, Paris Air Disaster and other such things are long gone.
The ST has been garbage for years, Rod Liddle notwithstanding. It even looks horrible.
A friend was boasting a few months ago that he always read the ST and was therefore sophisticated and well informed. I told him in no uncertain terms that the ST is now just garbage, along with all the vast majority of the rest of the MSM.
Great article Freddie!
Even Karl Friston from Sage said that lockdowns would only prolong the agony.
I nowadays get the feeling that the politicians are going to do whatever they want regardless of what new data comes along. They just don’t want to be blamed of inaction. No matter if those actions are detrimental to everyone.
It reads like a complete attack on Guptra and Heneghan. Fuelled more so by the likes of that Trisha Greenalgh.
Good god. I remember her. She used to write for the ICAEW’s Accountancy Magazine.
(This is also ridiculously woke)
In order for the GBD strategy to have any real hope of success: two measures have to be put in place:
1) devise and implement methods to shield the vulnerable;
2) the non-vulnerable must resume normal-ish life.
The former, to reduce the toll from the virus. The latter, to minimize the time, for which the vulnerable must shield. Both measures need public buy-in, and hence a public declaration of intent.
It seems to me, there would be considerable cognitive dissonance at such a turn of policy. given the rhetoric used and the atmosphere established so far. Not to mention the pushback from the “doomers”. So Boris could not go through with it even if he wanted to.
In the absence of explicit adoption, only half-measures could be applied, but these couldn’t have been robust enough to have a similar enough outcome.
I like this article- I like it a lot!
‘Second, when people are concentrated in homes, many of which are small with little or no outside space, this could actually increase the risk of transmission.’
That was written by a doctor in The Spectator today with regard to Wales and a Covid caseload that is ‘spiralling out of control’. I have been saying since March that staying at home is the worst thing you can do. After all, 66% of those in New York who contracted Covid or died from Covid (I don’t remember which it was) had followed the orders to ‘stay home’. If I, with no medical training or knowledge of epidemiology etc was able to see this nine months ago, why weren’t all the ‘experts’ and politicians?
Of course, the problem in Wales is compounded by the fact that when confined to their homes they are compelled to have sex with each other instead of with their woolly friends.
I too was left confused by the ST article. But, just in support of the ST and indeed other analysts, it must be difficult to coherently report on what is happening inside an incoherent government…
OT:
Can someone explain to me the difference between “The post” and “Unherd”?
/OT
“Unherd” has a teal background and the Post” has a light green background.
Hahahahaha. Very true indeed!
I *think* the idea is the articles in The Post are more like a blog post (shorter, more immediate) whereas the rest of UnHerd is more like a paper with published articles etc. I appreciate that’s a fine distinction but it feels like that’s what they’re going for. Maybe.