opinion
It’s a strange election campaign – it was supposed to be a departure, but in the end it was about “Keeping up”. The symbol for this was Merkel’s diamond. And that was only one of four paradoxes.
Election campaigns and elections are processes in which a people locate themselves. It decides whether something should change or whether it will continue to do so on the whole. This simple decision of direction is often exaggerated, it is about turning, new beginnings and new beginnings, about continuity or stability.
Now that we are heading towards September 26th, let’s look back one more time to understand what lies ahead. Because there is a lot that comes up to us, regardless of the results.
It was an utterly strange and contradicting election campaign, and not just because two out of three candidates were nearly burned to the ground and the most unlikely of them made the most amazing comeback since 2002.
Annalena Baerbock burned up quickly, was able to stabilize, also convince here and there, but it was no longer enough. At some point she gave up the fight for the Chancellery. Armin Laschet fought a war of position and attrition, the pictures of his candidacy will line up in a gallery of hopelessness, even if the election turns out differently.
The most exciting race since 2005
And finally Olaf Scholz, in whom nobody believed for a long time, except himself, who surprised everyone, who just had to wait and smile. He anticipated a tectonic shift triggered by Angela Merkel’s departure, which both rivals misjudged: Laschet and the Union, how important the person would be; and Baerbock and the Greens, how much new start is really possible.
- Four paradoxes shaped the election campaign. I call the first the size paradox: It should be about big issues, but it was mainly about little things: CV instead of livelihoods, plagiarism instead of planet, blunders instead of programs.
- The second was the tension paradox: For weeks, people kept writing about how boring the election campaign was, while at the same time it was becoming more and more exciting. Yes, we experienced the most exciting race since 2005, there was and is a lot of movement. There has been a real fight for weeks, the parties of all three applicants oscillated in a corridor of 15 to 30 percent. Everything was in there, everything is in there. Or is it now over? You hardly want to commit yourself anymore.
- Third, there was this future paradox. We should actually fight about the future, but it was two shocks of the present, a flood of the century and the withdrawal from Afghanistan that kept us under our spell, absorbed us emotionally and produced some images that changed everything.
- The fourth and basically strangest and most momentous contradiction was the paradox of departure. In early summer, a mood of change was felt for the first time – even if it is always difficult to see how much mood there is actually and how much is being talked about. At some point, that reinforces itself. But there was, in surveys, conversations and anecdotes, in many places this desire for a new beginning, for a new beginning after 16 years of Angela Merkel. It was the desire for more: more risk, more risk, more investment, more broadband, more climate protection.
The big Merkel imitation spectacle
This wish remained vague: what should change, how much, and who should be responsible for it? Who should lead, who shouldn’t (anymore)?
But in the last few weeks it was suddenly about the opposite, about continuity, the election campaign became a Merkel-imitation spectacle. Who could form the Chancellor, who could form the best diamond, physically and metaphorically? It wasn’t even the promise that we wouldn’t do everything differently, but that we would do a lot better. It was a promise that Mutti would live on: through calm, clarity, competence and a little change. That is the message from Scholz that Laschet wanted to send in vain.
Whatever the outcome, a government will be formed that will set the course by 2030, and not just in terms of the climate. Even with the pension. There are also tipping points when it comes to demographic change, here too a government must act before the millions of baby boomers retire and there is an even greater shortage of skilled workers than there is today. You can feel the immense need for action in many areas: education, digitization, administration, healthcare, social insurance. Laschet could not deliver this superstructure, Baerbock only for climate protection, Scholz did not have to – a projection was enough for him to catch up.
The question remains: do we need more disruptive types for all that lies ahead of us, who rush ahead, generate energy fields, who tackle and control all the upheavals that are prophesied to us?
How much diamond does Germany want?
Or is it also a lot about balancing interests when so much is being transformed, about round tables, about particularly thick boards that have to be drilled? Perhaps this is the fifth paradox that some felt when he or she saw the diamond. That the majority of us then shy away from the future and avoid risks, that we wish that some things should change, but that many things stay that way.
We have surprised ourselves often enough. But I have doubts that this will still be enough.
David William is a talented author who has made a name for himself in the world of writing. He is a professional author who writes on a wide range of topics, from general interest to opinion news. David is currently working as a writer at 24 hours worlds where he brings his unique perspective and in-depth research to his articles, making them both informative and engaging.
