By Ed Turner
Friedrich Merz, the presumptive chancellor of Germany, has confirmed he will seek a coalition with the social democratic SPD after the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) won the February 23 election, topping the poll with 28.5%. Although the SPD has gone from winning the last election to a record low result of 16.4% of the vote, it remains the only credible coalition partner for presumptive chancellor and CDU leader Friedrich Merz.
Among Merz’s first acts was a bold statement that his first priority is “to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA”.
Things might have looked different for Merz. Had a small party, (the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance, or BSW) won just 0.03% less of the vote, Merz would have needed to find a third coalition partner. That would have most likely meant trying to work with the Greens. This would have been a much more difficult circle to square for the centre right and an option that would have come with a far greater risk of early government collapse, if a deal could even have been reached in the first place.
The far right Alternative for Germany (AfD) had a record result, coming second with a 20.8% share of the vote. Mainstream parties including the CDU/CSU have ruled out any sort of deal with the far right, which the AfD will now be viewing as an opportunity. A further period of CDU/CSU-SPD government at a time of economic challenges will leave the party feeling it has a good opportunity to capitalise on discontent and grow further.
The 2025 election saw a record low vote share for the CDU/CSU and SPD. It’s notable that none of the leaders of the one-time Volksparteien (“people’s parties” – with a cross-class, cross-society appeal) were popular. Merz fared best among them but on a scale of -5 to +5 for popularity, he achieved an average of precisely 0.
Worse still was the situation of the centre-right FDP, which crashed out of the parliament on a grand scale, getting just 4.3%, down 7.1 points. Its leader, Christian Lindner, who had brought about the downfall of the previous “traffic light” coalition between his own party, the SPD and the Greens, announced his retirement from politics. The Greens, with a respectable result (11.6%, down 3.1 points), will prepare for a spell in opposition.
The election shows a country disunited, a long way from being at ease with itself. Observers are immediately struck by the difference between eastern and western Germany. In the east, the far right Alternative for Germany (AfD) came first in all five states (excluding Berlin, which is a mix of east and west). In the west, with some exceptions, the CDU/CSU was dominant.
It has been evident for some time that concerns about migration as well as a feeling of being treated as second class citizens is driving up support for the far right in the east. Now, opposition to military support for Ukraine and general pessimism are also playing into the trend.
Age proved another very significant divide. Among those aged 18 to 24, the Left party got 25%, ahead of the AfD (21%). The CDU/CSU took just 13% and the SPD 12% . Among the over 60s, the picture is reversed. The CDU/CSU took 37% and the SPD 23%, while the AfD took 15% and the Left just 5%.
The Left’s success, at least among the young, was the one big surprise of the election. After a torrid period which saw the departure of leading figure Sahra Wagenknecht and her followers to form a separate party, the Left looked unlikely to meet the 5% vote share threshold needed to enter parliament until very recently. An internal split over Israel and Gaza was also causing difficulties.
However, the Left profited from the polarisation caused by Friedrich Merz’s decision to press ahead with a vote on hardline policies towards asylum seekers, including more border checks and turning away irregular migrants without processing an asylum claim. A savvy social media campaign spearheaded by the party’s youthful joint parliamentary leader Heidi Reichinnek also helped.
Meanwhile, the BSW took just 4.97% of the national vote and will therefore not have any seats in parliament. It is however worth noting that the BSW’s popularity was also extremely uneven across the country and another example of geographical division. While it tanked nationally, its anti-migration, “anti-woke” and pro-welfare policies, mixed with its criticism of support for Ukraine, was a more popular offering in the east with results around the 10% mark, double the national average.
What now for Europe?
The SPD has claimed it will not enter government at any price. It has hinted it will put any coalition proposals to a vote among party members as a way of trying to exercise leverage over Merz. But, in truth, the party has nowhere else to go. There is no alternative to a CDU/CSU-SPD coalition apart from early elections or a fundamental rethink of the former’s approach to the AfD. Neither is an attractive prospect.
All parties are also acutely aware of the tremendous pressure from other European countries for Germany to get its act together in the context of US president Trump’s assertiveness and the need to support Ukraine. But there are huge challenges to address on the domestic front. Merz has pledged tax cuts and higher defence expenditure, but there is no clarity at all how these will be paid for. Drastic reductions in welfare and other social expenditure would likely be a “no go” area for the SPD. An option might be to loosen Germany’s “debt brake” – constitutional restrictions on government borrowing. This is something Merz has been reluctant to do, but he has hinted he might consider it in the aftermath of the vote. This fundamental reform would need a two-thirds majority in both chambers of parliament, and if extra funds were only for defence, it is possible the Left and the AfD would combine to defeat it.
So Germany’s election gives us a paradox: in some ways the outcome is rather familiar, with an old-school Christian democrat leading a coalition with the SPD, another party with a long track record in government – and indeed with some prospect of German leadership in Europe. But it is also a deeply uncertain result. Germany is a country facing huge challenges: sluggish growth, war in Europe and a US president questioning key tenets of the post-war transatlantic relationship. It’s not clear how to put together a governing coalition that can agree on how to face these challenges, and which can satisfy a starkly divided electorate. Turbulent times, in the country and across the continent, may well be ahead.
Ed Turner is Reader in Politics and Co-Director of the Aston Centre for Europe at Aston University.
Ray W, says
So, presumptive Chancellor Merz, a center-right German party leader, says that his “first priority” upon taking office will be “to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible, so step by step we can really achieve independence from the USA.”
After 86 years of trusted partnership with NATO nations, in two short weeks, America has abandoned that trust and become an extortionist nation, demanding $500 billion in rare earth metals from the Ukraine as repayment for the roughly $185 billion in humanitarian and military aid we provided pursuant to a treaty we had long ago entered into to protect the Ukrainians, else America will not support the Ukraine in any peace initiatives.
In other words, America has in the blink of the proverbial eye transformed itself from trusted ally to street thug. Germany’s new leader knows that, now, Europe is better off going it alone.
Yes, Trump claims, falsely as it has turns out, that America gave $350 billion to the Ukrainians over the past three years. But lying to make a point casts the point in a very suspect light.
Ray W, says
Earlier today, Finnish President Alexander Stubb said:
“The war in Ukraine is not only about Ukrainian independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity – it is about European security, and it is about American leadership. … If there’s an iota or an inkling of understanding that Putin wins this peace, then the United States will have lost, so we need to fight this to the bitter end.”
President Stubb expanded on his nation’s role in NATO: “We just doubled NATO’s border with Russia. We have one of the largest militaries in Europe. We’ve always kept our defence expenditure up, and for an obvious reason, and that reason is not Stockholm, it’s Moscow.”
Make of this what you will.
Me?
Finland’s President just told Putin that Finland is ready to stand by the Ukraine to the bitter end, because if Putin wins, all of Europe, and America, too, loses. Finland has a large, well-trained and equipped army because for over 60 years Finland chose to stand alone and spent the money to allow it to stand alone. But after Russia invaded the Ukraine, Finland reversed course and joined NATO. Finland has never forgotten its Winter War with the Soviet Army just prior to WWII when the tiny Finnish army held off Russia’s mighty army for many months.
Does every FlaglerLive reader know of the Karelian Peninsula that borders Lake Ladoga to the north of St. Petersburg? It used to be part of Finland. The Soviets decided they wanted it, so they attacked the Finns to get it.
In two short weeks, America has gone from trusted ally to street thug. The Finns know what happens when you appease Russia, and they say they are willing to fight it out to the end.
Just another day in the Great Russian Appeasement of 2025.
Norman Roy says
Remember that in 1939, Germany signed a pact that both Germany and Russia would both ATTACK Poland with Germany Attacking First! Can Germany be TRUSTED as a member of NATO? Should Ukraine become a member of NATO? The Peace thru Strength and America First is the only way for World Peace. Remember, China started a COLD WAR Against America and Allies when it started to Destroy Coral Reefs to build Island Military Bases in the South China Sea! Wake Up Americans, this is a Real Cold War that could become a Deadly Hot War!
Pogo says
@Ed Turner
We have the same spoilers here.
R.S. says
If the socialists strain too much against the coalition with the CDU/CSU and if the public vote increases further for the AfD, the coalition will perforce be AfD with CDU/CSU. Trump’s push for Europe to increase arms spending may result in a European military–which Zelenskyy has already suggested–and a new European militarism. Merz has already called for the release of the long-range Taurus to the Ukraine. I fear that something vicious may be brewing from Trump’s shooting the bird at the alliance by abandoning the concept of leadership of the so-called Free World.
Pogo says
@Firstly, thank you, Ray W
…do any of the trump holes remember Dubya’s axis of evil?
The thing itself, as stated:
https://www.google.com/search?q=bush+axis+of+evil
And now, AOE 2.0: russia (current address of the butcher assad of syria), china, north korea, iran…
…and trumpanistan.
https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+joins+putin+at+un
trump holes’ parroting of the terrible infant and his flea circus doesn’t alter in any way the reality of the only moment — this moment.
Ray W, says
This is for the memory-impaired Norman Roy.
During WWII, Vinegar Joe Stillwell commanded an army corps in Burma. Mao sent two divisions of his best soldiers to serve under the American general. They proved to be such good troops that General Stillwell argued after the war that America should side with Mao against the forces of Chang Kai Shek. He had dealt with both governments and he didn’t trust Chiang. He damaged his standing in the army for his stance and he faded away.
What would become SEATO troops fought Mao’s Chines army in Korea, not just American troops.
SEATO troops fought in Viet Nam, not just American troops.
For the memory-impaired among us, including Norman Roy, the Cold War with China has lasted for 75 years, it didn’t start when China began scooping sand off the seafloor to build military bases. The West has tried to bring China in from the cold ever since Nixon went to China. Since 1948, when the Nationalist Chinese party retreated to Taiwan, China has claimed the island and its people. In 1979, America adopted the current One China policy.
In 1939, Germany was led by Hitler. Today’s German government is not led by Hitler. To the memory-impaired among us, like Norman Lear, Hitler still leads the German government and, therefore, its current government cannot be trusted because it invaded Poland 85 years ago. Yes, Germany today is a trustworthy NATO ally. Not perfect.
When former President George W. Bush went to war with Iraq, he commonly talked of the “coalition of the willing.” British forces invested Basra. Americans held Baghdad and Fallujah. Polish forces held their assigned region. Australian soldiers occupied their region. Thirty-seven other nations provided soldiers to support the combat soldiers, a force that Churchill referred to as “the tail.” As an aside, when interviewed by NPR, Poland’s president at that time was asked how long he thought it would be before his nation’s troops left Iraq, he answered that they would be there for decades because it would take that long for a democratic Iraqi government to be formed and supported by its people. We accepted the protectorate of the Federated States of Micronesia in 1948. We are still there. The four federated Micronesian states have been working towards independence ever since, but they aren’t there yet. No doubt they rely on American aid, but they have yet to vote on fully integrating into a strong federal government form of republicanism, i.e., a liberal democratic Constitutional republic.
The notion of going it alone, without allies, has been an absurdity for millennia. The first Empire of Trust was the early Roman empire before the age of the several Caesars and fascism. The early Romans signed treaties with their neighboring governments. They promised to station Roman Legions on Roman soil near the boundaries of their neighbors. The Legions would not enter neighboring soil until asked by the neighbor, but if asked they would fight alongside their neighbors against any invader. Free trade agreements were negotiated. If Rome was attacked from a different direction and the neighbor failed to supply military aid, once Rome fended off the attack, it then attacked the offending neighbor and removed the offending government. It then installed a new government that would honor the treaty and then retreated back to its Roman bases.
This idea promoted by Norman Roy that America can go it alone defies more than 2,000 years of history. When Marlboro defeated Napolean at Waterloo, it was an allied force that defeated the French. When the Allies defeated the Germans and the Austro-Hungarians in WWI, it was an allied force that defeated the enemy. Wilson demanded a League of Nations, because he knew that a democratic nation standing alone would be less likely to defeat a dictator, but that a coalition of nations together stood a better chance. When Hitler rose to power, one by one the small nations fell because England and France would not together stand up against Germany and, alone, they were too weak to stand against the horde. After the Grand Alliance between the United States, Great Britain, and Soviet Russia defeated Germany, Italy and Japan, Churchill and Roosevelt, then Truman, created the U.N. They never wanted to stand alone again.
No military leader today worth his salt thinks that America can stand alone against the dictators of the world. The memory-impaired, like Norman Roy, have it backwards. Peace through strength means America standing with its allies. America First means a weakened America.
Ray W, says
As background for this comment, FlaglerLive readers need to know that when Churchill was thrust into leadership in May 1940, the Allied armies were beginning to reel from the German Blitz. In less than two weeks, Dunkirk heralded the demise of the British army’s presence on the European continent.
Churchill immediately formed a National Unity government, inviting into his cabinet leaders from each of Great Britain’s political parties. One of the first actions of the House of Commons was to pass a bill declaring martial law and suspending the traditional 5-year elections term.
But Parlaiment did not suspend every protection available to challenge the government. Reserved to members was the right to dissent from the government’s actions. While the people could not vote out the National Unity government, their representatives could.
As I recall, Churchill called for a snap vote on only two occasions during the more than five years of war, perhaps three. Enough members were agitating in the press for change. Each time, the vote was lopsided in favor of Churchill and the National Unity government. Once, 30 members voted to dissolve the government. Over 300 voted in favor of the government. With this size of majority, any press on dissension faded away.
With this historical precedent in mind, do all FlaglerLive readers remember the lies President Trump issued last week about Ukrainian President Zelenskyy? Trumps said he had a 4% approval rating and that he was a ” dictator without elections”, while ignoring the fact that Russia’s President Putin is an actual dictator who imprisons and sometimes kills his political rivals to ensure that he is reelected.
Consistent with Churchill’s approach to countering dissension based on lies that can be spread by the press (and spread by the more gullible among us), the Ukrainian parliament (Verkhovna Rada) held a snap vote. Like Great Britain, at the onset of the Russian invasion, the Ukrainian parliament had voted to declare martial law and to suspend elections until the end of the war.
Now, needing to counter the lying American president, the Ukrainian parliament passed a resolution titled “Statement of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on Support for Democracy in Ukraine in Conditions of Russian Aggression.”
The measure needed an 80% parliamentary vote to pass. On the first vote, the measure failed to garner 226 votes. On the second vote, the measure passed 268-0, with 12 members abstaining. So much for Trump’s lies of a 4% approval rating.
By this vote, parliament affirmed Zelenskyy’s presidency as the democratically elected leader of the Ukraine during wartime, stating that he had been “elected in free, transparent, democratic elections. … His mandate is not questioned by the Ukrainian people and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine”, and it reaffirmed its earlier voted that elections cannot be held during a period of martial law.
This vote undermined Trump’s second lie.
The vote affirmed that national elections would be held “after comprehensive, just and sustainable peace is ensured on its territory”, adding that “it is Vladimir Putin who is responsible for the fact that it is currently impossible to organize free transparent and democratic elections in Ukraine.”
Make of this what you will.
Me?
Lying, particularly lying by the American president, can do immense harm to an embattled populace who are risking erasure as a people should Russia obtain by theft what it could not sustain by puppet government. Many of its children have been kidnapped by Russian forces, and the kidnappings continue.
I will say this over and over again. If our President has to lie to make a point, it stands to reason that the point is never valid to begin with. Yes, the gullible among us are more than willing to launder our President’s lies, thinking they are more virtuous by the act, but lying, by definition, can never be described as virtuous.