The 2025 Bundestag election landscape features key figures like Robert Habeck of the Greens and Alice Weidel from the AfD engaging in public debates, with Habeck advocating for unity and progressive policies, while Weidel promotes a right-wing agenda centered on tax cuts and pension reforms. Smaller parties, such as the FDP and Left, face challenges in securing parliamentary representation, amidst growing discussions on social policies and the implications of proposed reforms on the electorate.
Overview of the 2025 Bundestag Election
Following the recent ‘Chancellor Duel’, various political figures shared their insights, albeit in different television formats and often without direct political opponents. How did the Greens, FDP, AfD, Left, BSW, and CSU respond to the debate?
Both Alice Weidel from the AfD and Robert Habeck representing the Greens expressed a desire to participate in the ‘Chancellor Duel’ held on Sunday, where they aimed to engage in a debate with Olaf Scholz (SPD) and Friedrich Merz (CDU). However, they found themselves facing two female journalists instead, a situation they considered a second choice.
Habeck declined the double interview arrangement suggested by ARD and ZDF, preferring to participate in the Chancellor Duel alongside Alice Weidel. Weidel even contemplated transforming the ‘Chancellor Duel’ into a triell with legal backing. Nonetheless, those discussions are now in the past, leading to lengthy individual interviews on ‘What now?’ on ZDF, providing ample opportunity for both candidates to articulate their ideas and arguments.
Initially, ARD and ZDF planned to showcase two TV duels prior to the Bundestag election, though those plans have since changed.
Habeck’s Vision as ‘Alliance Chancellor’
Robert Habeck, at the outset, affirmed his ambition to become Chancellor, specifically positioning himself as the ‘Alliance Chancellor’. He aims to bring together the political center through constructive dialogue and to counteract extremes. His contemporary approach to leadership involves achieving consensus through conflict resolution. Acknowledging the slim chances of his ascension to the Chancellery, he emphasizes that the Greens are the ideal coalition partner, underscoring his preference to govern rather than face opposition.
Habeck’s policy proposals align more closely with the SPD than the CDU, focusing on migration, economic strategy, reforming the debt brake, and strengthening EU integration. He notably opposed Friedrich Merz on migration issues, highlighting that a lack of integration poses a greater challenge than family reunification for refugees. He advocates for integrating newcomers into the workforce, viewing it as an investment in Germany’s future.
He stressed the need for future-oriented discussions, particularly emphasizing education’s role. Responding calmly to critiques of his economic policies, including the contentious heating law, he expressed a commitment to improvement: reducing bureaucracy, lowering taxes and social contributions, and advocating for substantial investments, prompting a necessary reform of the debt brake.
As a potential coalition partner, Habeck anticipates the necessity for numerous compromises from his party.
AfD’s ‘Bourgeois Tax Policy’
Conversely, the AfD, through Alice Weidel, asserts they do not require such compromises. In her interview on ‘What now?’, she outlined her party’s ‘bourgeois tax policy’, which revolves around tax reductions, decreased social contributions, significantly increased pensions, and an education allowance benefiting even grandparents.
Weidel acknowledges the high costs associated with these proposals but insists Germany has sufficient revenues, arguing that funds are misallocated. The AfD proposes cutting expenditures on climate initiatives and foreign assistance to focus on the needs of ‘tax-paying German citizens’.
Positioning herself as the bourgeois representative of the AfD, Weidel has shown tendencies toward right-wing extremism, as evidenced in Riesa.
Weidel’s Coalition Advocacy with the Union
Weidel has consistently advocated for a partnership between her party and the CDU, suggesting that Merz’s goals could only be realized with the AfD’s support. She argues that a coalition of Red-Green and CDU would fail to bring about the political changes the AfD champions. Praise for Merz’s migration policy echoes this sentiment, as Weidel notes that these ideas have long been part of her party’s platform.
Looking ahead, Weidel has called for a systemic overhaul of pension and family policies. She believes all citizens should contribute to pension insurance, including politicians, as this would lead to more responsible pension policymaking. Furthermore, she argues that instead of relying on uncontrolled immigration, incentives should be created for German families to increase birth rates, advocating for tax benefits tied to family size.
Despite various economic research institutes indicating the high costs of the AfD’s proposals could lead to untenable debt levels, Weidel dismisses these claims, asserting that her party’s calculations are accurate. Intriguingly, when asked about her most significant misstep, she was unable to identify any.
Concerns for Smaller Parties
Both interviews on ‘What now?’ maintained a focus on facts rather than becoming overly polemical. It would have been enlightening to gauge the responses to the positions put forth by the Greens and AfD on ‘Hard but Fair’. Shortly after, smaller parties would face the scrutiny of the public with the provocative title, ‘Who will make it into the Bundestag? Who will be left out?’
While the AfD and Greens seem secure in their chances of entering the next Bundestag, the same cannot be said for the smaller parties featured in ARD‘s ‘Hard but Fair’. The CSU, represented by Dorothee Bär, appears safe, as even if they fall below the five percent threshold nationally, they are likely to secure enough direct mandates to remain in parliament.
On the other hand, the FDP, BSW, and Left parties face uncertainty, with current polls placing them at around five percent, raising concerns about their viability in the upcoming election.
Debate over Social Policies
The discussions aimed at attracting the attention of potential voters led to heated exchanges. Jan van Aken, the Left’s top candidate, accused other parties of heartlessness by linking citizen’s income to laziness. In response, FDP leader Christian Lindner contended that such remarks merely catered to the Left’s target audience, igniting a debate over social policies and their implications for the electorate.