In the new electoral period there are three types of opposition: the opposition that can be described as constructive (CDU / CSU), a second that combines system criticism with fundamental opposition (AfD), and a third that criticizes the system, but as constructive partner is recognized (Die Linke).

The opposition in the 20th Bundestag is not only more diverse than ever before.

She's back at all.

That was different in the last two electoral terms, a by-product of the grand coalitions.

Jasper von Altenbockum

Responsible editor for domestic politics.

  • Follow I follow

It is true that the opposition in the 19th Bundestag shared four parliamentary groups;

those of the FDP, the Left, the Greens and the AfD.

But it did not result in a powerful counter-world to the government.

The AfD parliamentary group provided the opposition leader, but was unable to fill the role.

At no time did she speak for the part of the Bundestag that wanted to replace the government.

The actual opposition leadership therefore came down to the FDP and the Greens, who at least theoretically had the opportunity to create a new government majority.

This did not result in a clear front between the government and the opposition.

One part, the SPD, was too close to the Greens and Left Party, the other part, the CDU / CSU, the FDP.

That is the great disadvantage of a grand coalition.

As a result, the Bundestag has literally become a representative, but also the engine of a development that can be observed outside of parliament.

Confrontations, irreconcilable alternatives and fundamental differences of opinion were and are perceived as a “division of society”, as a recurring “crisis”, as abnormal, even now again in the dispute over the Corona policy.

The people, however, are not, according to the ideal, a homogeneous and harmonious mass, but have always been “divided”.

Opposition is not crap

The birth of the AfD can hardly be explained without this phenomenon. The discrediting of opposition blinds you to adequate representation, which then seeks its way differently than traditional ways. Opposition is not crap. Resistance to corona measures is only a symptom in this respect: for the distrust of a majority culture in which consensus is proclaimed without the matter being carried out between the government and the opposition and remaining controversial. The AfD has been so successful so far because there is always new food for this deficiency.

It is precisely the polyphony dominated by opposites that characterizes a pluralistic democracy. Instead, the consensus, the compromise, the disdain for stubborn opposition has been the constant companion of the grand coalitions, which is still celebrated as an achievement. The fact that there is a common good that is already established before it has been determined from the competition of opposing viewpoints and interests is not the essential feature of an open democracy.

It is true that the ability to compromise and the ability to be a “good loser” are signs of constructive opposition.

But only the willingness to confront turns the opposition into an opposition.

For 16 years she did not have the will or the strength to do this - even the black and yellow interruption was not a great moment of the opposition in view of a crisis-ridden SPD.

Fear of division

The Bundestag must therefore first relearn the opposition.

The prerequisites for this are good: after a long break, there is again a clear comparison between a government coalition and a large opposition faction.

However, the long shadow of the grand coalition still lays over this front.

That became clear now before the election of the Federal President.

The reason for not standing up for candidacy is the pure consensus philosophy to which the CDU / CSU had to conform in recent years. Armin Laschet, the incumbent chairman, said: In the debate about the Corona policy, Germany is experiencing “centrifugal forces in society that divide our country”. In these times in particular, "a credible voice at the head of our state that brings us together and does not exclude us, a voice that is non-partisan and repeatedly focuses on the common good" is needed.

It would be the task of the opposition, however, to find a candidate whom it considers more suitable than the incumbent.

That is a reflection of their function in the Bundestag.

Here, too, she is ready to take over the official business as soon as she has a majority for it.

The failure to nominate a candidate for the presidential election reflects the weakness that an opposition leader who is ambitious to succeed Olaf Scholz does not (yet) exist.

So far, the path mapped out has been to put the office of party and parliamentary group chairman in one hand.

Anything else would be a loss of authority for each of the two offices, an opposition without a head and legs.

Laschet, on the other hand, elegantly pulled himself out of the affair: It is part of "democratic culture to keep a Federal President out of party-political hiccups". If that were true, it would be the end of a competition for nominations for an office in which the parties can and must distinguish themselves, especially if they claim a leadership role in the opposition. Before every election, the focus is not only on the common good, but also on the self-confidence and leadership of the party and parliamentary groups.

On February 13, Frank-Walter Steinmeier will indeed be elected as a candidate for “cohesion” - the cohesion of an oversized coalition that always sing the song of praise to the opposition, but when the going gets tough, this opposition as “ Cleavage ”represents.

As long as the parties and the Bundestag cannot deal with it better, society will not learn it again either.