Despite securing key ministries and policy successes, Germany’s Social Democrats face internal disarray and a fractured vision at their upcoming party conference.
On the final weekend of June, Germany’s Social Democratic Party (SPD) will convene for its party conference. Despite their presence in government, the significant ministries they secured during coalition negotiations, and several notable policy achievements, the event is unlikely to be a resounding triumph.
There are several reasons for this underlying tension. Firstly, the party suffered an electoral debacle in February, barely securing 16.4 percent of the vote. Secondly, the somewhat clumsy approach to governmental personnel selection alienated important factions within the party, leading to a disconnect between members and key power brokers. Thirdly, the party faces a significant lack of clear direction; many members are unsure how social democracy can effectively enhance its public profile, and there is certainly no consensus on the future trajectory of contemporary social democracy.
So, what is being discussed? In essence, there is a prevailing sentiment that social democracy must shift to the left to reclaim its role as the advocate for ordinary people, many of whom have felt abandoned amidst increasing uncertainty in recent decades. However, during times of polarisation and widespread irrationality, social democracy is also expected to serve as a beacon of reason, led by individuals whose competence and leadership are undisputed and who are trusted by the political centre. It must act as a clear counterweight to right-wing authoritarianism, while simultaneously seeking to engage respectfully with those susceptible to far-right ideologies.
The benefits of social democracy should be communicated clearly to its own constituents through concrete measures, as clientelism offers no viable path forward. Furthermore, most pundits agree that a compelling overall image is necessary – one that embodies modernity and captivating charisma. As Henning Meyer observed, “the need for change, emotions, and the charisma of candidates” are essential factors for success today, a truth that, in fact, has not differed significantly in the past.
These seemingly contradictory theses often intertwine within individual personalities, each containing a grain of truth. Cynical commentators have even suggested a modification to the German lyrics of “The Internationale”: instead of “Wacht auf, Verdammte dieser Erde” (Awake, ye wretched of the earth), it could easily become “Wacht auf, Verwirrte dieser Erde” (Awake, ye confused of the earth).
One particular source of this confusion has sparked considerable debate recently: the controversies surrounding peace, security, and defence policy. A group of long-serving, distinguished SPD party officials published a “manifesto” on peacekeeping in Europe, denouncing the rise of factions in Germany and Western Europe that primarily view the future through a lens of military confrontation and advocate for hundreds of billions of euros in rearmament. This perspective encapsulates the belief that the West is to blame for Russia’s descent into autocracy and imperial expansion because it provoked Putin. Crucially, it also suggests that the invasion of Ukraine could be resolved primarily through some form of security arrangement with the Russian leader and his Kremlin associates.
The paper invokes the spirit of Ostpolitik and specifically references Willy Brandt, presenting him as a witness to the policy favoured by the manifesto’s authors. This policy, regardless of one’s opinion on its specific theses, is rather adventurous. Willy Brandt, the legendary party leader, was a young journalist for Norwegian newspapers during the Spanish Civil War. He primarily supported the POUM fighters against General Franco’s fascist Falange – essentially, the defenders of freedom against their enemies. There is no record of him advising democrats to capitulate to avoid bloodshed.
Decades later, Brandt articulated one of his most significant quotes: “If I have to say what is more important to me than anything else besides peace, then my answer is, without hesitation: freedom.” Notably, the word “freedom” appears zero times in the manifesto, with only one mention of “fundamental freedoms.” Ironically, the media characterised the signatories as the “left wing” of social democracy, while advocating for pragmatic arrangements with despots would traditionally be associated with “realpolitik” or the “right wing.” However, that is a side issue, albeit an intriguing one.
This topic is undoubtedly fraught with ambiguities. A nation invaded by an imperial autocracy in violation of international law deserves full support in its self-defence. However, one can pragmatically question whether an “unjust peace” must be accepted when a prolonged war devolves into a bloody stalemate, claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. Defending oneself against an imperial autocracy with an expansionist ideology is essential, but it should not be a source of joy. Furthermore, pursuing a policy of détente with authoritarian military and police states is feasible, or at least worth attempting, for two reasons: first, the world is not comprised solely of peace-loving democracies; second, the concept of exporting democracy and regime change has not proven entirely successful in recent decades. Given these considerations, a degree of thoughtfulness should not be seen as a flaw.
Realism teaches us that, in an emergency, one must negotiate with the devil. It is easier to negotiate with armed gangsters when one is armed oneself. Moral clarity and prudence are not contradictory. A democratic socialism that resists the temptations of authoritarianism will never sacrifice the values of freedom, fundamental rights, human rights, and political freedoms for the ideals of a formed society, regardless of how much these ideals are cloaked in anti-imperialist or social rhetoric. One might also recall Karl Marx, who stated the necessity to “overthrow all those conditions in which man is an abased, enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being.”
This is a joint column with IPS Journal
Robert Misik is a writer and essayist in Vienna. He publishes in many outlets, including Die Zeit and Die Tageszeitung. His awards include the John Maynard Keynes Society prize for economic journalism.