
Germany needs a unifier. In Merz, it is getting a chancellor whose instincts are to divide
Merz's strategy involved breaking a taboo by relying on far-right nationalists to pass legislation for the first time in Germany's postwar history. The move fractured the country's normally consensus-driven centrist parties in the Bundestag, sparked mass protests and led to a rare public rebuke from the former chancellor and CDU leader Angela Merkel.
Despite the backlash, Merz stuck to his trademark swagger and refused to back down from setting a disturbing precedent. His only nod to regret was admitting he would have liked to have seen a different result. This is the man taking the reins of Europe's central power, and the continent has cause for concern.
The 69-year-old conservative will be sworn in as chancellor on 6 May, at a moment of profound reckoning for Germany. The postwar promise of Wohlstand für Alle (prosperity for all) is slipping away, with soaring inequality and a fifth of Germans facing poverty or social exclusion. Beyond the enduring east-west divide, new fractures split secure professionals from the precarious working class, old from young, urban from rural, homeowners from renters. Roads and railways are crumbling, digital infrastructure is behind the times and the education system is struggling to equip a shrinking workforce for the demands of an evolving economy.
The country's industrial base is buckling under high energy costs, outdated technology and suffocating bureaucracy. The once dominant car manufacturers are reeling, caught between their own hubris and growing competition from China. Donald Trump's trade wars have turned the economy's dependence on exports into a glaring vulnerability, while Vladimir Putin's aggression is forcing Germany to confront the threat of war.
Against this backdrop, the anti-Europe, pro-Russia Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party has drawn level with Merz's CDU-led bloc in the polls, shattering the comforting illusion that Germany's past had insulated it from the siren calls of nationalist populism. Germany's domestic intelligence agency last week designated the AfD, which is now the biggest opposition party, a 'confirmed rightwing extremist' force.
Faced with these challenges, Germany needs a unifier who can rally a divided nation with vision and purpose. But instead of a figure like John F Kennedy, who motivated the US with plans for a moonshot, it is getting an operator closer to David Cameron. Merz's failed migration bill finds an echo in the former UK prime minister's fateful Brexit gamble. Both politicians tried to harness nationalist, populist causes and lost control. The difference is that Merz still has time to change course, though his record offers little reason for optimism.
In the weeks since winning the election, the incoming chancellor has swung wildly back and forth. After flirting with the AfD on the migration crackdown, he took a harder line against post-election cooperation with the far-right and offered concessions to win over the Social Democrats for a governing coalition.
After campaigning on fiscal restraint, Merz made an abrupt U-turn on debt financing by hastily pushing constitutional reforms with the Social Democrats and the Greens to unlock hundreds of billions of euros in borrowing for defence and infrastructure. While changes to Germany's restrictive debt brake had been long overdue and were cheered by European allies, the sudden move was viewed with scepticism at home and contributed to pressure from conservative allies, who worried that Merz was giving too much ground to the centre-left Social Democrats. He has responded by vowing to squeeze spending, mainly at the expense of Germany's most vulnerable groups.
Trained as a corporate lawyer, Merz has never run a state, a ministry or even a district council. Known for being petulant and prickly, he gave up on politics after Merkel blocked his path to power, only returning to grasp his opportunity in the vacuum she left behind. But even then, it took him three attempts to secure the leadership of the CDU.
Rather than building bridges, Merz has often widened divides. In 2000, when he was vying with Merkel for control of the Christian Democrats, he proposed the concept of a German Leitkultur – which literally means 'leading culture' – and called on migrants to conform to a set of core traditions to truly belong.
In late 2023, he revived that debate. In trying to imbue the vague term with meaning, Merz suggested that buying a Christmas tree was part of being truly German – excluding Jews, Muslims, Hindus and secular Germans in the process.
It wasn't a slip of the tongue. The man from rural Sauerland in western Germany has called migrant children 'little pashas', accused Ukrainian refugees of 'welfare tourism' and claimed that foreigners abuse Germany's health system 'to get their teeth redone' – an allegation so inflammatory that it drew a public rebuttal from the German Dental Association.
His reputation and recent actions have Merz limping towards office, with an approval rating of just 36% – between the leftist Heidi Reichinnek and the AfD co-leader Alice Weidel, according to a recent Bild poll.
Far from being a knockout blow to the advance of the AfD, its classification as extremist risks playing into the party's anti-establishment narrative. The reaction from the Trump administration – secretary of state Marco Rubio called the German intelligence agency's move 'tyranny in disguise' – underscores how fraught transatlantic relations have become.
To turn things around, Merz needs to find his feet fast, show that he can be the chancellor for all Germans and chart a path towards the future. With his debt-fuelled spending package, he has the resources at his disposal. But aside from boldly proclaiming that 'Germany is back' on the world stage, he has made little effort to sell the plan to the public or set out goals and objectives. That needs to change, and a bold reset of the social contract is needed.
The reality is that Merz's funding plan is Germany's moonshot, but so far it lacks a launch pad and a destination. The country won't have access to these resources a second time and the new chancellor needs to make it count. Otherwise, the AfD will find itself with a clearer path to power. By appealing to populist sentiments and deepening divisions within Germany, Merz may inadvertently empower a more radical political shift, much as Cameron did in the UK.
Chris Reiter and Will Wilkes are the authors of Broken Republik: The Inside Story of Germany's Descent into Crisis. The German edition is Totally kaputt? Wie Deutschland sich selbst zerlegt
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


North Wales Chronicle
21 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
‘Viable chance' of ceasefire in Ukraine thanks to Trump, says Starmer
In a call with allies on Wednesday, the Prime Minister said the meeting expected between the US president and Russian leader Vladimir Putin is 'hugely important', but any deal must protect Kyiv's 'territorial integrity'. It comes amid concerns about the prospect of Ukraine being sidelined in negotiations about its own future after Mr Trump suggested any truce would involve some 'swapping' of land. Leaders including Sir Keir and Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky held virtual talks with the US president earlier on Wednesday as Europe braces for the outcome of his face-to-face discussions with Mr Putin in Alaska on Friday. Mr Trump told reporters in Washington he rated the call 'a 10' and revealed a second meeting, with both the Ukrainian president and the Russian president present, could take place 'if the first one goes okay'. Co-chairing a meeting of the so-called 'coalition of the willing' – a European-led effort to send a peacekeeping force to Ukraine in the event of truce – Sir Keir said any deal must sit alongside 'robust' security guarantees. 'This meeting on Friday that President Trump is attending is hugely important,' he said. 'As I've said personally to President Trump for the three-and-a-bit years this conflict has been going on, we haven't got anywhere near a prospect of actually a viable solution, a viable way of bringing it to a ceasefire. 'And now we do have that chance, because of the work of that the president has put in.' Further sanctions could be imposed on Russia should the Kremlin fail to engage, and the UK is already working on its next package of measures targeting Moscow, he said. 'We're ready to support this, including from the plans we've already drawn up to deploy a reassurance force once hostilities have ceased,' he told allies. 'It is important to remind colleagues that we do stand ready also to increase pressure on Russia, particularly the economy, with sanctions and wider measures as may be necessary.' Mr Trump announced last week that he would meet Mr Putin on US soil on Friday, as he seeks an end to a conflict he had promised he could finish on his first day in office. It is believed one of the Russian leader's demands is for Ukraine to cede parts of the Donbas region which it still controls. But Mr Zelensky has already rejected any proposal that would compromise Ukraine's territorial integrity, something that is forbidden by the country's constitution. In a press conference alongside German chancellor Friedrich Merz after the joint call on Wednesday, the Ukrainian president said 'Trump supported us today' and the US is ready to continue that support. French president Emmanuel Macron said the US president had been 'very clear' on the virtual meeting that he wanted to secure a ceasefire in the talks on Friday. Asked if it was his decision not to invite Mr Zelensky to his meeting with Mr Putin on Friday, Mr Trump told reporters in Washington: 'No, just the opposite.' 'We had a very good call, he was on the call, President Zelensky was on the call. I would rate it a 10, you know, very, very friendly.' He added: 'There's a very good chance that we're going to have a second meeting which will be more productive than the first, because the first is I'm going to find out where we are and what we're doing.' He continued: 'We'll have a quick second meeting between President Putin and President Zelensky and myself, if they'd like to have me there.'

Rhyl Journal
21 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
‘Viable chance' of ceasefire in Ukraine thanks to Trump, says Starmer
In a call with allies on Wednesday, the Prime Minister said the meeting expected between the US president and Russian leader Vladimir Putin is 'hugely important', but any deal must protect Kyiv's 'territorial integrity'. It comes amid concerns about the prospect of Ukraine being sidelined in negotiations about its own future after Mr Trump suggested any truce would involve some 'swapping' of land. Leaders including Sir Keir and Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky held virtual talks with the US president earlier on Wednesday as Europe braces for the outcome of his face-to-face discussions with Mr Putin in Alaska on Friday. Mr Trump told reporters in Washington he rated the call 'a 10' and revealed a second meeting, with both the Ukrainian president and the Russian president present, could take place 'if the first one goes okay'. Co-chairing a meeting of the so-called 'coalition of the willing' – a European-led effort to send a peacekeeping force to Ukraine in the event of truce – Sir Keir said any deal must sit alongside 'robust' security guarantees. 'This meeting on Friday that President Trump is attending is hugely important,' he said. 'As I've said personally to President Trump for the three-and-a-bit years this conflict has been going on, we haven't got anywhere near a prospect of actually a viable solution, a viable way of bringing it to a ceasefire. 'And now we do have that chance, because of the work of that the president has put in.' Further sanctions could be imposed on Russia should the Kremlin fail to engage, and the UK is already working on its next package of measures targeting Moscow, he said. 'We're ready to support this, including from the plans we've already drawn up to deploy a reassurance force once hostilities have ceased,' he told allies. 'It is important to remind colleagues that we do stand ready also to increase pressure on Russia, particularly the economy, with sanctions and wider measures as may be necessary.' Mr Trump announced last week that he would meet Mr Putin on US soil on Friday, as he seeks an end to a conflict he had promised he could finish on his first day in office. It is believed one of the Russian leader's demands is for Ukraine to cede parts of the Donbas region which it still controls. But Mr Zelensky has already rejected any proposal that would compromise Ukraine's territorial integrity, something that is forbidden by the country's constitution. In a press conference alongside German chancellor Friedrich Merz after the joint call on Wednesday, the Ukrainian president said 'Trump supported us today' and the US is ready to continue that support. French president Emmanuel Macron said the US president had been 'very clear' on the virtual meeting that he wanted to secure a ceasefire in the talks on Friday. Asked if it was his decision not to invite Mr Zelensky to his meeting with Mr Putin on Friday, Mr Trump told reporters in Washington: 'No, just the opposite.' 'We had a very good call, he was on the call, President Zelensky was on the call. I would rate it a 10, you know, very, very friendly.' He added: 'There's a very good chance that we're going to have a second meeting which will be more productive than the first, because the first is I'm going to find out where we are and what we're doing.' He continued: 'We'll have a quick second meeting between President Putin and President Zelensky and myself, if they'd like to have me there.'


The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Policing must strike a balance between transparency and justice
Given the sensitivity of the issue, the high level of public interest, and the clear danger of legitimate public protests descending into mob rule, it is entirely right that the police should be given new guidance on releasing details of the ethnicity and nationality of a suspect in some, limited circumstances. The new interim guidance, issued by the National Police Chiefs' Council and the College of Policing, is, if anything, somewhat overdue – because it has been distressingly clear that surmise, conjecture, speculation, misinformation, propaganda, 'asking questions', and downright lies about serious crimes, can be weaponised by malign agents. Conspiracy theories have generated enormous public concern, and then disorder. Some calm analysis is required. Crime is crime, and criminals are criminals, and crime cannot be racialised. The release of information concerning a suspect's nationality, race, or immigration status (as has been suggested but, for the moment, resisted) cannot be used as an excuse for a riot. An offence is not more serious because it has been committed by, say, an asylum seeker, and an individual is not in some sense more guilty because of the colour of their skin. Except in cases involving a racial motive or incitement to hatred, such considerations ought to be irrelevant. Generally, they will continue to be. That has to be the default position. However, if a senior police team judges that the safety of the public is best served by the release of certain defaults, then a degree of discretion is justified. 'Guidance' is just that – a set of guidelines, not hard rules. The violent summer riots of 2024 were serious enough, but they could have been much worse had the truth about the Southport murders not emerged when it did, and had the untrue rumours about the suspect being a Muslim asylum-seeker who had come straight off a small boat not been dispelled – not that it should have made a difference in terms of criminal justice. As in all operational matters, the police should have an appropriate degree of discretion in the particular circumstances of any given situation they face, and equally, they should be free of political interference – and the demands of certain populist politicians and 'activists' to use heinous crimes and the suffering of victims for their own cynical purposes. These particular public figures don't care, in any case, whether people they don't like receive a fair trial, and are cheerfully contemptuous of the rule of law, particularly the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. But no democratic society should concede the universal principle of the right to a fair trial, uncontaminated by widespread misreporting of circumstances and motives such that a jury cannot do its job. The Home Office has not written these new guidelines – which is as it should be – but it has welcomed the interim proposals. The home secretary, Yvette Cooper, is complementing the move by asking the Law Commission to clarify how increased transparency and limited discretion for the police to release certain details could affect a free and fair trial. At the same time, the police have to be able to justify and defend their own actions in a world in which corrosive and baseless allegations of 'two-tier' policing, and 'cover-ups', are thrown around with such recklessness on social media and, sadly, by the so-called mainstream media as well. Like the guidance on what the police can reveal about suspects, the law on contempt of court also needs to be revisited. Since the relevant legislation was put on the statute book, the world has changed beyond recognition. Then, it was a matter of ensuring that a relatively small number of domestic press outlets and broadcasters behaved responsibly. For many years, because journalists are not on the whole bent on causing injustice and triggering retrials, the arrangements worked well. Times change. The last year or so, in particular, has proved how social media operates in an entirely different way. It is practically lawless. A very old adage springs to mind when one considers the speed of modern dissemination – a lie can be halfway around the world before the truth has got its boots on. This is an environment in which none of the tech giants take full responsibility for what appears on their platforms, or for the very real harm it can inflict. Vile racial slurs about non-existent crimes or suspects can originate far from the UK, and be amplified by bots and augmented by AI. There is a balance to be struck, essentially, between transparency and justice. That balance requires constant monitoring and periodic adjustment as technology moves forward and public expectations evolve. There will never be complete consensus, or success, often because the radical populists, both online and off, have a vested interest in fostering – indeed, creating – such unpleasant myths and conspiracies. But there is a sense here of a government and a police service being alert to the urgency of the challenge. In an often bleak social-media landscape, that is encouraging.