Germany: Democracy Is Saved by Dialogue

What is going on in Germany? The long election race for February 23 began some time ago, long before the “traffic light” government led by Olaf Scholz went into crisis. Things have changed in the last three years, and the first decisive voting issue was the issue of war and peace.

According to Robert Habeck, the Greens’ candidate for chancellor, “a special fund” is needed to finance the war. 7% of German economic output will be needed to finance the conflict against Vladimir Putin; Habeck is asking for 3.5% from voters, with the rest to be raised from “special funds.” Of course, this is not yet a “total mobilization” (Ernst Jünger) for war, but it is an incredible amount, especially considering the situation of the lowest-wage workers in Germany. This fact is thought-provoking if one adopts a view inspired by Catholic social doctrine or other social views of reality.

Here is a comment by Berthold Kohler in an editorial in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which, from a capitalist standpoint, no longer requires “special funds” but a commitment on the part of the entire German people: “Habeck’s appeal is not one of the promises that parties typically attract voters with. Even the CDU and the CSU in the Merkel era did not dare to call for a massive rearmament of the Bundeswehr (Germany’s federal army) during the election campaign and then push it through against the SPD opposition. But times have changed, thanks to Putin, and the Greens, once radically pacifist, have changed along with them. No other party has come out in favor of supporting Ukraine with arms shipments so early and so consistently. Habeck has been in favor of this even before the Russian invasion.”

One might also think, unlike the commentator of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, that the German Greens have changed for a reason inherent in pacifism itself: when they find an enemy, they become the most radically war-mongering party.

As for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung editorial, under Putin, a policy of appeasement would not be enough, only a policy of containment, which would be fair and costly. The culprit? Only Putin. Freedom costs a lot of money, so finally “total mobilization” involving participation in energy costs and so on. AfD and BSW have demonstrated how the German people don’t want this, but apparently, they would be wrong, according to the Frankfurt financial capitalism newspaper, which knows full well that “special funds” hit the pockets of the rich.

For our region of Saxony-Anhalt, the economic downturn in Germany means that unemployment reached a very high level at the end of the year. This was confirmed a few days ago by the head of the state employment agency, Markus Behrens (source: MZ). This means that the long-term unemployed face particular difficulties in finding a new job. In particular, the region’s energy-intensive industries, as well as jobs in the automotive sector, are suffering due to energy prices. I’m no expert on economics, and I don’t know the internal connection between unemployment and war preparedness, but I notice that certain “facts” are taking place at the same time, and I do a simple calculation: 2+2. I think I’m oriented to Pope Francis’ “peace prophecy.”

As for the other German parties, it must be said that both SPD of outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz, running for re-election on 23.02.25, and CDU of chancellor candidate Friedrich Merz, perhaps less consistently than the Greens’ candidate, support the containment policy. The alternatives are the aforementioned BSW (Sahra Wagenknecht) and AfD (Alice Weidel). BSW (Sahra Wagenknecht’s Union) certainly has a more social view of reality. Wagenknecht pushed the hardest and was the first on the political line in favor of talks with Vladimir Putin, but after regional elections in Thuringia and Saxony, she rather focused on power management, even with parties that nationally want an increase in military spending. The AfD candidate for chancellor, Alice Weidel, considers migration her main topic, but, as the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung also confirms, she defends a diplomatic stance towards Russia rather than a confrontational stance. This position is also justified by, shall we say, a philosophical and political approach to the dialog between West and East.

However, the “old” parties in Germany, as AfD calls them, favor a legal rather than a political clash with the party. This can be seen, for example, in how vehemently they criticized an article by Elon Musk, also recently published in German. This is an article published in Die Welt am Sonntag, which I read in the English version published by J.D. Vance on X social media. Musk’s article, discussing Germany and AfD, in my opinion, should be analyzed, not demonized.

Vance’s judgment is also interesting: AfD particularly received mass support in the new lands, which, despite the inherent contradictions in the GDR history, I might add, have a tradition of fighting fascism immediately after World War II, whereas in the Federal Republic of Germany we had to wait until 1968 for a real and sharp criticism of the Nazi past.

But let’s go back to Musk’s article, which consists of the following points:

1. Economic Issue. It is interpreted in the sense of economic liberalism, which we are familiar with from certain positions of the USA and in general from the fundamental liberal idea of “less state, more society”: a principle which the Holy Father criticizes in his apostolic epistle of the beginning of the pontificate, “The Joy of the Gospel,” and on which, at any rate, all Catholic social teaching cannot but be critical.
2. Issue of immigration and national identity. This is contrary to the Holy Father’s commitment on this issue, but it must be made clear that the Pope himself has repeatedly emphasized that we must integrate immigrants without allowing them to become “parallel societies” within our own.
3. Issue of energy and energy independence management. Issues are raised that require discussion of the use of nuclear energy and of stable and usable forms of energy in the medium and long term.
4. Issue of political realism. In his assessment of AfD, Musk notes that Alice Weidel, party leader and open homosexual, has a partner originally from Sri Lanka. This detail, he argues, does not fit the image of Hitler’s party obsessed with the “pure race.” Personally, I believe AfD is not a Nazi party, but a patriotic party. I find historical comparisons to the 19th century much more useful than fixating on comparisons to National Socialism for understanding the AfD phenomenon.
5. Issue of innovation and the future of Germany. According to Musk, AfD will offer some solutions to overcome the stagnation the country is in.

The reaction of the classical parties, let’s call them that, to this article is consternation. There is talk of the billionaire’s intervention in the German political debate. Musk responded to this criticism by saying that he has invested large sums in Germany. Personally, I believe that the true democratic position is not only to defend oneself against perceived enemies, but to openly debate their arguments.

In conclusion, I would like to turn to political scientist Till van Rahden. In his book “Democracy: A Fragile Way of Life” (Campus Publisher), he reaffirms two fundamental theses:

1. Democracy is safe as long as people with different ideas continue dialogue.
2. Democracy is not just a political form, but a way of life that eliminates differences politically, not legally.