We've never done it like this before! We've always done it that way! Two guiding principles that all too often determine processes in German politics. The second sentence in particular applies to the way in which the head of state is determined in Germany. Because even before the 1,260 members of the Federal Assembly meet on January 30, 2027 to choose the new resident for Bellevue Palace (or for the current alternative quarters), the matter has long been decided.
Not according to the principle of selecting the best. A presidential candidate in this country does not have to face a democratic popular election either. Unlike in Austria, for example, where the Federal President is determined in a direct referendum. The objection that is often raised is that this is not appropriate for the office in Germany, which has comparatively few skills.
So every five years, sometimes earlier, a process begins that takes place mainly in secretive back rooms. Names will soon be launched and tested, then withdrawn again, influence will be shown - and the limits will be shown to the opponent. The office itself and the person who is supposed to fill it become irrelevant. We are currently experiencing this very clearly again in the struggle to succeed Frank-Walter Steinmeier.
Ilse Aigner seems settled. But behind the scenes, a squabble has been raging for weeks over interpretive sovereignty, rivalries and political perspectives. Actually, Aigner's candidacy should be like a gift for Merz, as it takes Markus Söder, a heavyweight rival, out of the Berlin game. Perhaps the CSU would even reward her by waiving the expensive mother's pension.
On the other hand, Merz has to demonstrate drive and assertiveness, which is why he recently pulled the Hessian CDU parliamentary group leader Ines Claus out of the hat. Hardly anyone except real political afficionados would be aware of this, and so no murmurs spread through the republic, as was the case with Joachim Gauck. The red-green opposition presented him in 2012 as a suitable and popular successor to the unfortunate Christian Wulff, whom Angela Merkel had previously pushed through to the general incomprehension.
Merkel absolutely wanted to prevent Gauck, but her coalition partner at the time, the FDP under Philipp Rösler, reached an agreement behind Merkel's back with the SPD and the Greens about the former head of the “Gauck Authority”: an embarrassment for Merkel.
Long before, the election of Gustav Heinemann had been primarily about preparing the SPD-FDP coalition that was emerging in 1969. And Adenauer's plan to move to the office of Federal President in 1959 in order to prevent the popular Economics Minister Ludwig Erhard from becoming Chancellor's successor was also due to political maneuvers, not out of concern for the office.
This unworthy spectacle is still on the performance schedule to this day. In view of the increasing political polarization, a transparent and fair procedure that does justice to the rank of the head of state and the demands of a democracy would be necessary. Instead, for 80 years, people have been haggling at carpet and carpet dealers' meetings like personnel agreements before a district party conference.
The whole thing is a staging like in Schmidt's or Kohl's time, when the popular parties still had approval ratings of 80 or 90 percent. As with the election of the constitutional judges last year, it shows how out of date this mechanism is. Anyone who demands respect for the office of Federal President should also ensure a respectable path for his appointment.
