column
Fried – view from Berlin
The wizard of Olaf – the chancellor and his tricks
Chancellor Olaf Scholz likes to use his bag of tricks from time to time
© Omar Havana/AP/dpa
The Chancellor likes to use tricks. At first glance, this seems reprehensible in politics. But now Olaf Scholz has achieved something historic.–
Olaf Scholz hasn’t received such homage for a long time. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte called the Chancellor’s idea “brilliant.” Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba cheered that what Scholz had done would “go down in history.” And the Chancellor himself modestly reported that “others were also happy” at the EU summit.
Yes, what was going on there?
As negotiations on accession talks with Ukraine neared the vote on Thursday evening last week, Scholz asked the Hungarian Prime Minister, who was the only one against starting Ukraine talks, whether he wanted to leave the room. This wasn’t a spontaneous idea, but rather a long time in the making. Nevertheless, it was not clear how Viktor Orbán would react. In fact, he finally got up and went – the statements contradict each other – for a coffee or to the toilet or both. The remaining 26 heads of state and government were able to vote unanimously in favor of Ukraine, in accordance with the rules of procedure.
The episode provides an opportunity to think about the trick in politics, especially since Scholz in particular is often suspected of using this device. It was only a few days ago that he presented a new budget for 2024, which opposition leader Friedrich Merz promptly described as “fiscal policy trickery”. And the new budget became necessary because the Constitutional Court struck down as illegal a budget procedure that Scholz had invented. After the Karlsruhe verdict, the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” spoke of a trick, as did “Spiegel” and “Taz”; and me too.
Tricky Chancellor Olaf Scholz
The question now is: When is a trick a good trick and when is it a bad one? Does it just depend on whether it works or not? Would Scholz’s idea have been bad if Orbán had stayed put? Or would shifting billions in the budget have been a good thing if the Union had not sued and the Constitutional Court had had nothing to judge? After all, a lot of money went to recipients who could put it to good use. But if the end justifies all means, even unconstitutional ones, it quickly becomes difficult to draw boundaries. And only those who think that politics is a dirty business anyway will judge the value of a trick based solely on its functionality. Unfortunately, quite a few people think so.
A similarly ambivalent picture emerges when asked whether the Brussels trick harms or benefits the Chancellor. Even if the idea was successful, it underlines the image of Olaf Scholz as a politician who likes to work with, let’s say: unconventional methods. Or you can recognize Scholz’s tricks as positive proof that the Chancellor has always deeply understood the problems, which is what enables him to find creative solutions in the first place. In other words: Because Scholz delves into the dossiers early on, he is one step ahead of others when the opportunity arises.
The latter would probably be the interpretation that would be accepted by a majority in the Chancellery.
Incidentally, in the press conference in Brussels, Scholz said that asking Orbán to come to the door was not a trick at all. Rather, he did something “that you can do if you want to help each other, even if you don’t agree.” Was that another trick to prevent this column?