Germany has changed since the Union and the SPD have ruled together, few will deny that.

Political activity has become gentler because the major people's parties have committed their camps to cooperation and the most pragmatic politicians have a natural advantage in this cooperation.

The objectification has long since extended not only to the Union and the SPD, but to all parties with the exception of the AfD.

Anyone who thinks that is a good thing misjudges the problems. Over the years there has been a split in the country because there is little understanding of passions in the pragmatic republic. The people's parties have lost their ability to involve people who are less intelligent, wise and disciplined and who only have an intuition. Above all, those who make rational decisions are reached, i.e. argue on the basis of scientifically verifiable knowledge about which solutions are possible for real problems. In the main, that's good, but it takes revenge elsewhere.

Outside of high society there are people who no one can conjure away.

They are less reflective, tend to make decisions based on their feelings and don't get their money's worth when popular parties pour their lowest common denominator into laws.

The factual politicians who rise up in large coalitions remain alien to them, there is no emotional mobilization of a fundamental question.

You are idle

Many forget that when they associate the Chancellorship of Angela Merkel with a time when a great deal of calm and commitment has entered government affairs.

The pacification that great coalitions enforce is at the same time paralyzing.

Anyone who imagines parties as machines in which intuitions, fate and anger are sucked in at the front and rationally justifiable positions emerge at the back, could say: They are idle.

As a result, the people’s parties lose their vigor, just as every ruling party comes to a standstill at some point.

In this case, however, both camps are affected.

The harm of one is no longer the gain of the other.

If governments can only be formed under the flag of distant island states, that demands even more pragmatism on the part of those involved, and the problem becomes more and more urgent.

The audience doesn't necessarily notice that. Many consider the ability of everyone to form coalitions with everyone as evidence of pragmatic wisdom. They consider black and green to be worth striving for because they promise balance when the antipodes come together. Black-green is the continuation of a grand coalition by other means. Just as in the case of a grand coalition, other parties would also be affected. How are the SPD and FDP supposed to polemicize convincingly against a government when parties close to them are involved and everything is moving in a moderate direction?

It is noticeable that there are always those who lose touch with the democratic parties whose convictions have not yet matured into arguments.

In the past, their passions were absorbed by the respective opposition.

In the confrontation between the political camps, there was much sharper, much more invigorating speech.

Directing this raw energy into orderly channels is the most important task of parties.

That works much worse in grand coalition pragmatism.

The reconciliation of the camps requires objectivity, and this ends in aloofness.

The damage is obvious

When Merkel's first cabinet was sworn in in 2005, all commentators were still very aware of this danger.

It was warned endlessly that a grand coalition must remain the exception in a democracy whose vitality also depends on the changing responsibilities of the political camps.

Getting used to it has made it unnecessary to talk about it in the past few years.

After such a long time in which Germany - with a short black and yellow interruption - was governed across camps, the damage cannot be overlooked.

The grand coalition has mastered many crises with flying colors.

But like any cross-camp policy, it has shrunk to a gray, administrative act.

There is a certain likelihood that the general election will turn out in such a way that cross-camp alliances are inevitable and the problem will continue. The voters are the only ones who can break this spell. At least if they recognize the value of coalitions that do not tire the entire party landscape.