The British weekly magazine The Economist published a text with the revealing title: ‘Angela who? Merkel’s legacy looks increasingly terrible’. The text begins with a comparison between two women who, for a dozen years or so, completely dominated political life in their respective countries: Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel. At the time of handing over power to their successors, both of them appeared to be monumental figures. From today’s perspective, however, it seems that only the British Prime Minister’s legacy has stood the test of time. The case is different for the former Chancellor, who until recently was considered - along with Konrad Adenauer and Helmut Kohl - to be one of the three giants of politics in post-war Germany.

The Mother of the Nation

When she retired in 2021, she was referred to as ‘die Mutter der Nation’. Her resignation was accompanied by a flood of articles in the world press, whose authors lavished praise on the political genius of the German leader. At the time, I published a summary of her time in office on the wPolityce portal entitled ‘The bitter balance sheet of Angela Merkel’s 16-year rule. This legacy will stay with us for a long time’. The tone of the text went against the widely held views of the time. I wrote about the disastrous consequences of the energy policy (Nord Stream 2), climate policy (‘Energiewende’), immigration policy (‘Wilkommenpolitik’) or ideological policy (‘CDU ohne C’) practised by the longstanding German Chancellor.

Today, many circles in Europe, including the editors of The Economist, are coming to similar conclusions. Adding to Angela Merkel’s disastrous legacy is the regression of the German economy, which is suffering from years of neglect at the level of strategic planning. It is puzzling that the strongest economy in Europe remains a global dwarf when it comes to the most promising industry in the world today, namely IT. Another complaint concerns the ruin of the army. The once mighty Bundeswehr is in a state of decay, presenting a picture of misery and despair.

‘Parricide’ fear

According to Czech commentator Marian Kechlibar, two factors have affected Merkel’s rule. The first was the ‘’parricide‘’ she carried out against Helmut Kohl. It was the ‘mein Mädchen’ (as the father of German reunification called the former FDJ activist) who stabbed her boss in the back by publishing a text in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in December 1999, effectively ending the Iron Chancellor’s political career.

The ‘Mother of the Nation’ did not want to follow in his footsteps, so she made sure that no significant rival would be able to rise to her side. She therefore eliminated any activists who might have threatened her position, such as Friedrich Merz, Roland Koch or Ole von Beust. Instead, she promoted people who were dull, bland, lacking charisma and initiative. In this way, Merkel has intellectually and programmatically drained her party, reducing it to a technocratic managerial structure. Under her rule, the CDU has become an empty shell without any ideological content. A typical product of her rule is Ursula von der Leyen, who has transferred her former principal’s style of politics to the level of the European Union, which is already well established in Brussels.

The mistress of populism

The second factor determining Merkel’s rule was the fear of sharing the fate of Gerhard Schröder, who had to pay with the loss of his chancellor’s chair for carrying out unpopular reforms under the name Agenda 2010. For this reason, the head of the CDU was careful not to make any decisions that could tarnish her media image. She had an almost slavish attitude to public opinion. For her, the ideal was to last long with no shocks or tensions, which would give the public a sense of stability and security. We usually associate populism, according to Kechlibar, with Juan Perón-style politicians, but Merkel achieved mastery in cultivating a different kind of populism, one that serves the stereotypes and prejudices of the educated middle class of the big cities. In her actions, the CDU president was reminiscent of Zelig, the hero of a Woody Allen film, who, like a chameleon, adapted to the environment around him. Merkel was able to make a 180-degree turn and adopt the agenda of her biggest political opponents if this could bring her media applause. That is why she decided to close all nuclear power plants in 2011 and opened the borders to illegal immigrants in 2015.

The acolyte of the Alternative for Germany

Merkel has also negated the achievements of Adenauer and Kohl in another area. After all, a basic tenet of CDU policy for several decades was to prevent the emergence of a new party that would position itself to the right of the Christian Democrats. However, the takeover of the left-wing agenda by ‘Mutti’ resulted in a huge outflow of voters with conservative and national views. This allowed the Alternative for Germany (AfD) to emerge and grow into a significant force.

This broke down the political system that had existed for decades. The emergence of a new major right-wing party, surrounded by a ‘cordon sanitaire’ and lacking coalition capacity, resulted in the inability to form a government coalition with a homogeneous programme. The desire to keep the AfD out of power forces the formation of exotic coalitions, which are unable to pursue consistent policies and govern the state efficiently due to radical internal differences.

Merkel has also put today’s CDU leaders in a difficult position for yet another reason. All over Europe, right-wing parties are trying to fight the left-wing frenzy. But how can the German Christian Democrats oppose the unrealistically exorbitant standards of the green transition or the open borders policy for illegal immigrants, when it is in fact their party that has been persistently promoting these solutions for years? They are unreliable in this respect. Unless… they dissociate themselves from Angela Merkel’s legacy and commit ideological ‘matericide’.

Tłum.K.J.