February 23, 2025 - 8:00am
On the eve of the German election, private TV channel SAT1, known primarily for trashy reality and game shows, hosted a two-hour “Citizens’ Speed-Dating” programme, where candidates chat one-to-one with voters over a particular issue. Weirdly, the CDU’s Friedrich Merz, forerunner and favourite to win the election, turned down the invitation, leaving the three parties who’ll be angling for a coalition with Merz to flog their wares.
The show was pre-recorded and over-edited but the intimacy of the format was a chance for incumbents Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) and Economy Minister Robert Habeck (Greens), as well as Alice Weidel (AfD) to show their human, empathetic side, and for normal citizens to call bullshit with a refreshing authenticity. Given that 40% of Germans are still undecided on who to vote for in tomorrow’s election, this was a real opportunity for each one to make their case.
The whole gamut of problems facing Germany got screen time: from the stifling bureaucracy to the tiny pensions, from the crisis in the car industry to the sense that the influx of asylum seekers has eroded security on the streets. On Friday, yet another horrific incident shocked Germany: a 19-year-Syrian stabbed a 30-year-old Spanish tourist at the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin, of all places (thankfully the Spaniard survived). The refugee’s plan had been to “kill Jewish people”, according to police. It was the latest in a slew of attacks by immigrants from the Middle East.
And yet the speed-dating highlighted all the complexity Germany faces on immigration. Confronted by a 54-year-old policeman concerned about immigration, Weidel promised to hermetically seal Germany’s nearly 4,000 kilometre border and push back all asylum seekers and illegal migrants. Merz has said he’ll do something similar, though with less vehemence. The policeman pushed back at Weidel, with the argument that such a closure was unrealistic, would require tens of thousands of new border police and cause chaos in the European Union. It was just a matter of “political will,” replied Weidel. She would step up deportations, get rid of the “tolerated” status many rejected asylum applicants are given. And negotiate with the Taliban to send back criminal Afghans.
Social Democrats and Greens have long since had the issue on their radar as a voter concern: Habeck pointed out that the traffic-light government had already sent a plane-load of Afghans convicted of serious crimes, which had been negotiated with the Taliban indirectly through a third party. Mostly though, when talking immigration, the Left-of-centre says the asylum mess can only be solved together with the EU and points to the latest common asylum deal, agreed on but unimplemented.
Immigration was a theme throughout the debate, with Weidel stumbling over a question of German citizenship and remigration — a policy she backed at the AfD conference. When she was told by a 21-year-old named Kevin that his father had been an illegal immigrant from Nigeria, he added that “if you’d have been in power back then, I wouldn’t exist.” Weidel retorted that his father would have been able to apply for asylum or a work visa, before making an awkward compliment about Kevin’s appearance. Hardly a satisfying answer.
The vibes of this strange speed-dating exercise were pleasantly civil. Afterward the politicians had no other politicians to attack, but this resulted in a fake leveling out of the candidates. It seemed to take the edge off Weidel’s more radical stance on immigration, while making the Greens and Social Democrats look tougher on immigration than they actually are.
It also put in plain sight the vast range of individual concerns that preoccupy voters. And in doing so, did nothing to calm my fears that the centrist coalition that is going to emerge won’t be able to solve the problems facing ordinary Germans.
Maurice Frank co-founded the English magazine Exberliner and now co-writes the newsletter 20 Percent Berlin.
mauricetfrank
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 problem across Europe is that ordinary people with legitimate concerns are dismissed as “far right”. Had established political parties addressed their concerns the “far right” organisations would not have been necessary.
You’re right. The established parties are a part of the socially liberal, progressive elite, which has completely lost the plot. The ever greater ‘freedoms’, individual and group ‘rights’ and ‘social justice’ they desire are worthless aims unless the security of your nation, its cultural foundations and social cohesion are protected. Tim Marshall’s article today in The Times, which specifically focuses on defence, is highly pertinent to all these elements of our democracies.
the problem is modern politicians do not understand history or human nature
if this cannot be resolved using democracy, then history show’s us alternative methods will come about
We have no politicians or parties in the UK who are capable of resolving this issue, even though it’s really not that complex
So they won’t deliver, but people who can will replace them.
So this goes beyond immigration, this goes about the very nature of Western ‘democracy’ and if it can be saved, and if it’s worth saving, because it’s not really working for the demos is it
We are indeed in the throes of a dilemma with democracy. It’s still a relatively new way of seeking to govern; universal adult suffrage in the UK (for instance) is still less than a century old.
Although we have a couple of egregious examples where fledgling democracies, such as Germany and Italy in the 1930s, resulted in a turn to authoritarianism (and perhaps a couple of South American examples) i’m not sure that’s sufficient to inform us about how the vast increase in communications more recently will affect democracies – and that’s the game-changer.
With more changes to come via AI, it seems the US is adopting a stance which at least seeks to embrace changes in technology. What remains to be seen is whether this will confer advantage over non-democratic regimes who they (and we) are competing against. The Trump victory has kept us in the game, and now the European democracies have to respond. In the UK, we have a better chance than most due to Brexit but we have the disadvantage of being at the wrong end of the electoral cycle.
Being at the beginning of the electoral cycle could also work in our favour though. Whilst I’m no fan of Starmer, we’ve got 4 years now to watch and see if any of the populists can deliver on their promises (although the AfD will still be on the sidelines) or whether they’re simply much better at identifying the problems than workable solutions.
Farage tying his colours to Trumps mast can go one of two ways. If Trump does well then it will help Reforms cause to ideologically close, however if Trump ends up deeply unpopular that could drag Reform down with it
To a large extent left wing inclined people believe in “the Blank Slate” – the belief that all humans are born with the ability to become literally anything or anyone. Usually under the benign guidance of their more politically informed betters.
This belief is seriously flawed. People are born with sets of predispositions and inclinations and their behaviour (at least in some areas) is bone deep and unlikely to change.
From Wikipedia:
The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature is a best-selling 2002 book by the cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker, in which the author makes a case against tabula rasa models in the social sciences, arguing that human behavior is substantially shaped by evolutionary psychological adaptations.
I actually disagree with your first sentence. To me the idea that we can all become rich if we just work a bit harder, and that everybody at the top and bottom is there on merit is more prevalent on the right than the left. The left tend to think that different groups are almost predetermined to fail or succeed based on societal structures
To repair its collapsing demography Germany needs to bring in 800k immigrants every year. Either welcome them, or make more babies, or wait until the robots take over.
Where can we find a country with a surplus of Germans who could emigrate to Germany?
Yes, this is true. But they need 800k SKILLED migrants per year. To think that the migrants that Germany does actually take in per year at the moment are going to sort out its demographic problem is laughable and I honestly don’t know how it’s going to get back on track.
I disagree.
It seems to me that:
1) The ‘collapse’ is likely to reverse itself as the population falls, which it won’t if they keep shoveling-in immigrants. Crowding, high housing prices, etc. are the probable causes of low birth rates. Like most animals we unconsciously react to stressors by adjusting the size of our population.
2) We are very adaptable. The problems predicted for a world with a smaller population (think: 1950) can mostly be dealt with by simple belt-tightening.
And Lord knows we could use some belt tightening.
3) The intractable problems overwhelmingly effect the investor class; the happy 1% that no one talks about anymore. Should the Germans, or any of us in the West, sacrifice our homelands to protect stock and bond prices?
I disagree. A falling population wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. Wages would rise and house prices would fall for one thing.
The rich wouldn’t like it though, hence the reason we’ve been running the immigration Ponzi scheme for over 30 years
Yes, the rape industry needs more rapists.
Have you gone insane?
No, another shambolic coalition won’t work. In 2029, the CDU and the AfD will probably form a Government. Then things will get moving.
Once again, I find myself relieved that 20 years ago, I chose to go to Austria and not Germany.
Austria is now governed by FPO, which is the Austrian AfD. Not sure what your comment really means.