Anyone who watched the so-called Triell on Sunday evening with the intention of finally getting to know the most important program items of the three chancellor candidates has not read a newspaper in the past few weeks, never turned on the radio, avoided all news programs on television and is not on any social media Registered.

So there is a high probability that someone like that did not look at the trial, especially since you did not have to be a prophet to suspect that the concentrated entertainment competence of Annalena Baerbock, Armin Laschet and Olaf Scholz would not be able to measure up to the tension of a " Tatorts ”or the emotional force of a Hollywood film.

Claudius Seidl

Editor in the features section.

  • Follow I follow

So was it a waste of time?

Günther Jauch, the retired talk show host, suggested this when, after the Triell, in the so-called analysis conversation of the host broadcaster RTL, he put forward the thesis that the question of who has now won is one.

The other is the question of whether that will affect the voting decision, which he doubted.

With which Jauch pushed the whole evening of television into the realm of irrelevance - and staged one of the most beautiful performative contradictions: We analyze here, with important expressions, but actually it doesn't matter.

Representation needs bodies

Or it can be that two women, who at first glance you would like to attest profound political ignorance, namely Motsi Mabuse (known from the show "Let's Dance") and Louisa Dellert (influencer), were right when they were, how awkward Anyway, insisted that they saw something worth talking about and which might count when it comes to which party to vote for. Louisa Dellert believed to have observed a somewhat tense, slightly blocked Olaf Scholz. Motsi Mabuse seemed to be taken with the body language of Annalena Baerbock and a little repelled by the perceived aggressiveness of Armin Laschet.

With which both have adopted exactly the attitude that is appropriate for such a program. The programs are known, it's about performance. It's about tone of voice and facial expressions, gestures and posture - and whoever considers these to be non-political criteria has not only forgotten the political successes, for example, Helmut Kohl with his apparently unshakable physicality and Angela Merkel with stoic indifference. Nor does it make sense that representation is less dependent on programs than on people, characters, bodies: a chancellor who travels abroad (or receives abroad) does not just represent the interests of her country; she embodies it in a way. And as a citizen of this country you are almost forced toto identify with her (that Angela Merkel mostly appeared more relaxed, friendlier, more cheerful at international conferences than before the federal press conference, was also good news for people who did not vote). And those who speak to the people have the best chances if they manage to present themselves as belonging and outstanding at the same time.

In that sense, none of the performances on Sunday were really good. Anyone who rattles down their own program without errors, precisely and at the appropriate volume is still just rattling down the program. Anyone who refuses every punch line, every irony and the admission of not knowing something is not only showing a lack of respect for the intelligence of the audience. He also reveals how difficult it is for him to imagine something beyond the party programs. This hereafter, however, is the place where the moral, aesthetic and possibly the religious sources of power of good politics could lie. And at the same time it is the place where the people sit and watch and, as it was said again that evening, could be picked up. If it is the task of politics to ensure the good life for the people,then politicians should be able to stage a glimpse of this life in their performances.