But what was once called a “grand” coalition was a shadow of its past. Instead of a resounding mandate, the edge was a mere 13 seats (out of 630), and the far-right AfD had more than doubled its share of the vote to become the second-largest party in the Bundestag, supplanting the SPD. Meanwhile, the liberal Free Democrats — the kingmaker of German politics in the past — was voted out of parliament after bringing down the Scholz government.

Amid this sense of rupture and the evident struggles by the mainstream to contain the far right, Markus Söder — the head of the Bavarian conservatives — said the alliance of Friedrich Merz’s CDU/CSU and the SPD “is, in fact, democracy’s last bullet.”

While Söder is known for bombastic rhetoric, the idea that Germany could drift away from democratic ideals was widespread (I highlighted those risks in my book “Broken Republik” — now available in paperback with a fresh Afterword).

With Merz marking his one-year anniversary as chancellor today, things haven’t gone as planned. Only about one in three voters support the governing parties, the nationalist AfD has opened up a lead as wide as five points over the CDU/CSU at the top of the polls, and a vast majority of Germans disapprove of the job the government is doing. Merz also regularly has to field questions about how long his government can last.

While there has been a lot to deal with (from Trump’s tariffs to the U.S.-led Iran war), the bungling of the coalition was predictable, and the core problem was hinted at in Söder’s comment from last year.

By portraying the centrist parties as the final bulwark of Germany’s democracy, he articulated their shared self-image as the embodiment of democracy itself. In other words, their role legitimizes an administration as democratic. But that type of conceit makes them poor defenders of the system.

That’s because such an attitude deems a party’s actions to be democratic by default, even if the focus is really on securing power. That was evident when Merz and his allies manipulated the parliamentary system to force through hundreds of billions of euros in debt spending before the AfD could block such a move under the new parliament.

The goal of the shock post-election gambit was to defuse the fiscal issues that had destabilized Scholz’s administration. But in so doing, the mainstream sidestepped the public under the guise of preserving “democratic” power.

But parties are not the source of power in a democracy, people are. And the people are starting to see through these self-serving machinations.

Political parties are, of course, necessary. They are critical to organize support, delineate policies and set agendas. But a political machine is not end in itself. Parties are a means through which to solve problems. Too much reliance on them leads to outcomes like we’re seeing in Germany, where politicians struggle to see the people beyond the party.

Such conditions aren’t isolated to Germany. The traditional establishment has already collapsed in Italy and France, and the UK’s is on the ropes. That might ultimately be a good thing. There should be a certain amount of churn in a dynamic democracy. But disruption opens risk if vacuums can’t be filled constructively.

That’s the state that Germany finds itself in at the moment. And if the CDU/CSU and the SPD can’t find ways to solve the country’s problems, they risk undermining the very system they claim to represent. No party is worth that.

Leave a comment

For better or worse, Davos has been a regular part of my annual routine for years. It always seemed little more than a collective ego trip — a stage for the world’s elite to cosplay at caring about poverty, disease and environmental degradation.

But this time, with the world spiraling toward chaos, the theater fell flatter than ever.

From the rambling of Donald Trump and the sycophantic farce of his Board of Peace to the steady parade of self-serving executives, there were no new ideas, at least not in substance. It was a system justifying itself, creating a distraction from the smoke billowing out from behind the facade. It was a ritual of the liberal order (and I played my part).

The vacuous display was in its way reassuring. It meant there’s no reason to look toward the Swiss Alps for answers, because there will be no revelations coming down the mountain.

The emptiness of Davos was counterintuitively highlighted by Mark Carney. The Canadian prime minister boldly declared that the postwar rules-based international order was dead. His proposal was less of a “rupture” (as he called it) than a new form of Realpolitik.

He called for middle powers to unite to rival great powers like the U.S. (though he never mentioned Trump or the U.S. by name). While feeling fresh, the position assumes that existing power structures can and should endure — hardly surprising from a former central banker and a Goldman Sachs alum. But the underlying problems with liberalism itself escaped scrutiny.

The most striking part of Davos, though, came toward the end, when two of the final speakers brought home the glaring gap between the elitist rhetoric and brute reality.

Elon Musk, a last-minute addition to the program, was given kid-glove treatment by fellow billionaire Larry Fink, the head of BlackRock and interim co-chair of the WEF. The pandering was so complete that Fink asked the crowd to applaud again after the initial welcome for the world’s richest man came off as too tepid.

Rather than press the boss of Tesla, Spacex and X on any number of issues (such as facilitating disinformation, sowing nationalist division and undermining democracy), Fink gave Musk free rein to talk about a future where humankind would be served by humanoid robots, ride around in autonomous vehicles and have the means to explore space.

His fantasy might somehow sound appealing if it wasn’t so abundantly clear that such a future can only be attainable for the Davos elite. The rest of us will be locked out.

Just before Musk’s pontifications, there was Volodymyr Zelenskiy. The Ukrainian President also came on short notice. He had planned to stay in Kyiv to show solidarity with countrymen suffering without heat and power because of Russia’s attacks.

The strain of years of war were etched on his face, as he lashed out at Europe for talking too much and doing too little to defend democracy and define the future. Despite all their futility, Ukraine’s closest allies already represent the coalitions of the willing that Carney’s vision aspires to.

To make his point, the Canadian prime minister evoked former Czech dissident Vaclav Havel’s criticism of Soviet authoritarianism. The parable of the greengrocer in Havel’s essay The Power of the Powerless, which Carney cites, shows how regular people sustain power structures by performing system-supporting rituals.

Underscoring how the Davos crowd misses the mark, Carney equated Canada with a simple shopkeeper. But with its vast natural and financial resources, Canada is not merely peddling onions and carrots. Havel’s point was that people have the power and collectively legitimize constructs — like “Canada” as well as “communism” and “liberalism.”

That means people can collectively withdraw their support when the system no longer works for them. The liberal order appears to have forgotten that lesson.

Afterall, the ability for the Davos elite to accumulate vast resources, while others starve or are bombed, is not about the principles of liberty. It is an outcome of systemic failures perpetuated under the guise of freedom and individual rights. The claims echo the absurdity of the Soviet Union branding itself a “worker’s state.”

Recognizing that dissonance is ultimately the positive conclusion from the ritual of Davos. The shopkeepers of the world are now clearly aware of what the system has to offer and they can take the sign out of the window if they so choose.

But looking at the data from the influx of refugees from Syria and nearby countries into Germany a decade ago (the starting point of Europe's migration crisis) shows a different picture.

In terms of labor participation, that group (who were almost completely unprepared for starting over in another country) is now almost on par with native Germans. That exceeds expectations despite early mistakes that slowed their integration.

More than 83,000 Syrians became German citizens last year -- a status that's not granted arbitrarily. Some have started businesses, others are entering critical jobs like doctors and teachers, even one has become a mayor.

Uncontrolled migration is disruptive and can strain resources initially, but the vast majority of refugees and asylum seekers want to give back, when given the chance. And the reality is that Germany needs migration to maintain its workforce and finance pensions as Baby Boomers retire.

So a more nuanced position might be the better approach for the current government than grandstanding over border controls.

Check out my piece with Bloomberg and let me know what you think.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-08-15/syrian-immigrants-are-boosting-germany-s-economy?utm_source=website&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=linkedin