Political scientist Brigitte Geissel on the imminent election, voter fatigue and the need to involve citizens more effectively in democratic processes.
UniReport: Prof. Geissel, this Sunday Germans will elect a new Bundestag [lower parliamentary chamber]. It looks as though Friedrich Merz will become the new Chancellor – the only question is which of two possible parties will help the CDU to the necessary majority. Isn’t that a rather boring situation given that Germany is facing some tremendous challenges?
Brigitte Geissel: Yes, on the one hand the situation is boring, but of course on the other it’s also incredibly worrying. We know that roughly one quarter of those eligible to vote just don’t go. Then there are those who vote for parties that don’t make it into the Bundestag – i.e. those five to ten percent of the electorate who vote for the Tierschutzpartei, DIE PARTEI and other minor parties. It’s unclear whether Die Linke, BSW or FDP will have any seats in the next Bundestag – which comes to another almost 15 percent of voters. All told, this means there is a distinct possibility that almost half the German electorate will not be represented in the new Bundestag. No matter what kind of coalition emerges, the result of this federal election isn’t going to make people very happy. On the contrary, it will leave most of them dissatisfied, and that gives me great cause for concern. There are two other aspects that I think also make this election very remarkable: first, the age structure of those eligible to vote, more than half of whom are aged 50 and above. This will naturally also be relevant to questions related to safeguarding our country’s future and its ability to innovate. Second, two dominant topics have emerged from the opinion polls: the economy and migration. Many people see these as cause for concern, something politicians should take to heart.
Is the likely election outcome with Friedrich Merz as Chancellor heading a conservative/socialist or conservative/green coalition a possible reason for people not to vote?
There are several reasons for voter fatigue. People no longer exhibit the same party loyalty; the “traditional” voter who set his or her cross next to the same party in each election has become a thing of the past. What we see today instead is a rise in swing voters. Just a few weeks ahead of the elections, polls showed that only around 30 percent of voters knew who they wanted to vote for. Thirty percent were still undecided, and the third group I mentioned above remained unsure of whether they’re going to vote or not. This trend has been evident for some years. It’s hard to say whether the likely outcome with Friedrich Merz as Chancellor is enhancing voter fatigue. In addition, as researchers we know that the number of non-voters is always much lower in opinion polls than it is in real-life.
The time between the announcement of the elections and polling day is quite short. Does that pose a problem to the parties organizing their election campaigns, or to citizens seeking to obtain sufficiently detailed information?
For the parties this is a real problem, including when it comes to preparing their election manifestos. My guess would be that it is not such a major problem for voters, who were dissatisfied with the previous coalition long before it came to an end. People have already had time to search for a new political option. With the “Wahl-O-Mat” [website] up and running in February, many people also use this service to help them decide who to vote for and which party best matches their own views. There are also plenty of other ways to obtain information about the parties, including information published by public broadcasters and the supra-regional daily newspapers.
A lot of people now use the Wahl-O-Mat website to help them make up their mind. How great do you think its influence is, and should we in fact welcome it?
Very few voters read campaign materials or party manifestos, that’s pretty much uncontested. With that in mind, the Wahl-O-Mat is an enormous help in figuring out which party shares one’s opinions. The digital offer has seen successive improvements over the years – you can now select specific emphases, for instance, giving the responses a particular weighting. It is important here to recall that the Wahl-O-Mat does not dictate to people what party they should ultimately vote for; it provides users with information about which parties most closely resemble their own views on certain questions and which do not. It is still up to the individual voter to decide whether to vote on that recommendation or not. Many people are surprised by the results generated by the Wahl-O-Mat, which supplies a facts-based foundation for a decision. But every voter naturally also has emotional ties to a particular political camp or party, which of course also play an important role.
Many observers say a lot of voters no longer rely on traditional media and prefer to get their information from the internet and social media.
Yes, that is definitely something I worry about and it brings me back to the non-voters: We know that many of them are generally dissatisfied and believe that none of the parties represents their interests. At the same time, many also assume that their interests are not taken into account in public broadcasting. Let me emphasize here that I don’t want to engage in any kind of voter-bashing along the lines of “the voters are simply too dumb” – that simply isn’t true. I do, however, think public broadcasters should do more to address the criticism that they toe the government line. More often than not, these media tend to ignore the issues and topics that are important to distrustful and critical voters, making it easier for the latter to go elsewhere to get their information.
It currently looks like the AfD will get over 20 percent of the vote, which would make it the second largest party in the Bundestag, even if it doesn’t have any prospect of joining a government coalition. Is it conceivable that it could become the largest party in the Bundestag, like the FPÖ in Austria, and lead a government?
I don’t think the AfD will ever become the largest party in the Bundestag. I do really hope the other parties will align themselves more closely to the interests of the people instead of coming with the argument – that sometimes appears quite elitist – that AfD voters are simply stupid. During her election campaign, Hillary Clinton once called Trump voters “deplorables.” That was definitely not the right thing to do. But to get back to your question: I don’t think there’s any danger of the AfD becoming the largest party. Be that as it may, I would nevertheless appeal to the other parties’ conscience and ask: “Why are you not making sure that people feel represented by you?” How can a party like the AfD be so successful in claiming that “we’re the only ones who listen to you.” Something really needs to be done.
Chancellor Olaf Scholz was out talking to people as part of his election campaign, as were many other politicians. Is that mere symbolism, or is it a harbinger of a new political style?
It is much too short-sighted to try now to present an image of a large party in touch with the citizens. It will take a longer-term plan to get more people back on board in our representative democracy.
As a political scientist you also examine new, citizen-based democratic procedures. In light of your research, is there anything you would like to see?
I’d like to see people identifying more with democracy again. Let me give you a small example: If we were to invite randomly chosen people to citizens’ assemblies, we would be pleased if five percent showed up. Most people just don’t seem to be interested. Compare that to Switzerland, where the share of people participating in citizens’ assemblies is far higher – even though Swiss citizens already have much more political say as a result of their form of direct democracy. I would like for people to identify more strongly with democracy in Germany, too. Many appear to view democracy as something that doesn’t have a lot to do with them. That is why I am so strongly in favor of engaging in a more intense discussion on how exactly we want to be governed; a discussion that goes beyond slogans like “We need a new party, we oppose the Chancellor, we oppose the government” and instead focuses on what kind of democracy people actually want. Every opinion poll shows that some 80 to 90 percent of voters wish to have more of a say; what remains unclear is what specific form this should take. The majority of respondents say they want more referendums. But we know very little about the level at which they should take place – at the federal, state, or municipal level? Should they address all topics, from social policy to international policy? If we want to emerge out of this general dissatisfaction, all these issues need to be debated. That is not something to be done during a heated election campaign. In the long term, we need to think of something new if we want people to feel more closely bound to democracy again.
Political scientist Prof. Brigitte Geissel holds the chair of Comparative Politics at Goethe University Frankfurt, and specializes on the Federal Republic of Germany in the European context. She is also head of the Research Unit “Democratic Innovations.” Geissel recently published a book on the subject: The Future of Self-Governing, Thriving Democracies: Democratic Innovations By, With and For the People. Opladen, Berlin and Toronto 2023. The German version appeared in 2024.
