Traffic light government: why the FDP is often against it

Burner off, gun law, budget: The FDP acts like an “against party” in the government. But the argument in the traffic light also shows that something is at stake – not just for the FDP.

When the Bavarian FDP politician Daniel Föst steps up to the lectern in the Bundestag, Construction Minister Klara Geywitz (SPD) can be prepared for something: Hardly any other MP is so aggressively demanding more efforts for the ailing housing construction as the FDP man Föst.

But the Green Economics Minister Robert Habeck also has an opponent from the ranks of the traffic light coalition: the Hamburg liberal Michael Kruse, who castigates Habeck’s plans for an extensive ban on gas and oil heating as a “scrapping orgy”. Not to forget the FDP defense politician Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, who was one of the toughest critics of the federal government’s Ukraine policy last year.

Harmony is different

Housing, energy policy, defense – these are just three examples in which FDP politicians set their own accents in the traffic light coalition. In addition, there are the current discussions about the federal budget, the end of combustion engines at EU level, the acceleration of transport infrastructure projects and a tightening of gun laws. Harmony is different.

There is a lot at stake for the FDP. For them, the way to the traffic light was the furthest, as the Social Democrats and Greens concede. Before the 2021 federal election, FDP leader Christian Lindner had still opted for a coalition led by the Union, but then opted for the alliance with the SPD and the Greens – out of “state political responsibility”, as he said.

The party has not fared well politically so far, if you look at the results of the state elections: In North Rhine-Westphalia and Schleswig-Holstein the party was kicked out of government, in Lower Saxony and Berlin even out of parliament.

Is the image threatening as a “contrary party”?

As a consequence of the defeats, party leader Lindner wants to sharpen his own profile. The FDP must be a guarantor for a middle-of-the-road policy – “may others think about bans, new tax increases or new debts”. Within the coalition, this is often perceived as a blocking attitude. And even in the FDP, some warn against the image of an “against party”.

FDP General Secretary Bijan Djir-Sarai counters this accusation offensively: “If there are idiotic positions, then we say no.” Where topics went in the wrong direction, it was rather the duty of the FDP to state this clearly within the coalition.

No more debt

And from the perspective of the liberals, this is about fundamentals: solid finances, a growth-friendly economic policy and the relationship between state and market. The main proposal for the federal party conference at the end of April in Berlin should also address this topic.

With the postponement of the cabinet draft for the federal budget, Lindner, as finance minister, has made it clear that he wants to stop the further path into debt: “I will solve the problem that we have a structural deficit,” said Lindner in the Report from Berlin. Although the state can count on a significant increase in tax revenue, the ministries’ spending requests would increase even more – that could not be done with him.

Rising interest burden

It is an important signal, especially given the rising interest rates. If, up until a year and a half ago, negative interest rates made it seem as if taking on debt was a business for the state, the burden on the budget for debt financing has now multiplied. The debts in the regular state budget are one thing. Added to this are the multi-billion dollar special assets for the Bundeswehr, the energy price brakes and climate protection measures.

They were all designed by Lindner in such a way that the debt brake of the Basic Law could be formally complied with. The FDP finance minister has often been scolded for this, including by the Federal Court of Auditors. If he were to fully comply with the spending requests of his cabinet colleagues, he could have saved himself the tricky circumvention of the budget in his first year in office.

But it’s not just about Lindner’s reputation and the amount of interest payments. From the point of view of the FDP and many economists, debt outside of times of crisis is not a suitable means of stimulating the economy. From Lindner’s point of view, this is exactly what matters now – also from a political point of view: The traffic light coalition only has a chance of re-election if Germany gets back on the road to economic success, says Lindner. Tax increases, on the other hand, would be poison for growth.

Technology openness in climate policy?

Finally, there is also a fundamental issue in the often fragmented discussions about the end of combustion engines or oil and gas heating. “My advice is that we seriously pursue the climate goals, but are generally open to the technologies,” says Lindner. A council of experts from the National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina recently advocated openness to technology in climate policy, in line with the position of the FDP.

Fewer bans, instead a framework in which business can look for creative solutions – this is also well received in business. BDI President Siegfried Russwurm is also helping the Liberals in the dispute between Transport Minister Volker Wissing (FDP) and Environment Minister Steffi Lemke (Greens): “As far as infrastructure in Germany is concerned, it is completely inappropriate to play off rail against road – we need both. “

FDP can rely on the chancellor

When it comes to contentious issues like these, the FDP can often count on the support of Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD). After the recent cabinet meeting in Meseberg, Scholz supported the FDP’s position on the combustion engine shutdown. The EU Commission will make a proposal “on how e-fuels can be used after 2035”.

In a recent conversation with Lindner and Vice Chancellor Habeck, Scholz is said to have made it clear that – as agreed in the coalition agreement – neither the debt brake should be touched nor taxes increased.

The chancellor’s proximity to such FDP positions is probably due to the content, but also to tactical considerations: it is important to keep the FDP in line – after all, there are still three critical state elections for the Liberals this year: In May in Bremen , in October in Bavaria and Hesse. Scholz has no use for debates about a possible break-up of the coalition. I prefer discussions within traffic lights, where the three governing parties can present their positions to their own supporters. And no party needs this more than the FDP.