analysis
Federal Interior Minister Faeser achieved a disastrous election result as the SPD’s top candidate in Hesse. As a minister, however, she is quite successful, but sells it poorly. Chancellor Scholz is sticking to it.
It is nothing unusual that Chancellor Olaf Scholz did not comment on the results of the state elections in Hesse and Bavaria on election evening. The Chancellor never does that. But the election in Hesse in particular was not a “normal” election because one of its most important federal ministers was running. Interior Minister Nancy Faeser has achieved the historically worst result the SPD has ever had in the former Social Democratic stronghold of Hesse. And that’s why many people are wondering what’s going on in the Chancellor’s head.
“My heart is in Hesse. I have been in state politics for 18 years and I always wanted to make a difference in Hesse,” said Faeser when she announced her candidacy for Prime Minister of Hesse at the beginning of February. She is the first woman to head the Federal Ministry of the Interior and she wants to become the first female Prime Minister in Hesse.
A hit with the opposition. On the same day, the Union asked questions: Is Hesse actually more important to you than the job in the Federal Ministry of the Interior? The interior department is one of the largest within the federal government – how does she want to continue to manage it effectively if she is simultaneously campaigning in Hesse? And of course: What if Faeser loses – will she then also be damaged as Interior Minister?
The Safety net of the Chancellor
Scholz answers the last question long before the election campaign gets going: If Faeser does not become Prime Minister of Hesse, she will not go to Hesse as opposition leader, but will remain Federal Interior Minister in Berlin. The Chancellor gives her a safe return ticket from the start.
Faeser also doesn’t see herself as an opposition leader – she has been doing that for many years. On the evening of the Hessian state elections it became clear: even this goal was set too high. Faeser wouldn’t even have become opposition leader, because the AfD will. Doesn’t this result put pressure on the Chancellor with his return ticket?
The limping Röttgen comparison
Faeser is not the first federal minister to lead an election campaign at the state level from her office. In 2012, the then CDU Federal Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen stood as a candidate for the state elections in North Rhine-Westphalia. He wanted to go to Düsseldorf as Prime Minister.
Röttgen also achieved the CDU’s historically worst result in North Rhine-Westphalia at the time. A few days later, he was fired by then-Chancellor Angela Merkel following public pressure.
The comparison to Faeser is still flawed. Because in the Röttgen case, neither the party nor the chancellor supported his candidacy. He was also said to have ambitions for the chancellorship, for which he could have made good use of the stopover as prime minister. Neither is the case with Faeser.
On the pro list
In recent months, Scholz has repeatedly clearly supported his Interior Minister. So what points could be on the Chancellor’s imaginary pros and cons list?
He repeatedly cites their successes at the European level: Faeser succeeded in negotiating the long-awaited Common European Asylum System (CEAS). Many people before her have failed because of this. When there was a dispute with the Greens over the issue, Scholz supported her.
Faeser’s decisive fight against right-wing extremism is also emphasized not only by the Chancellor, but also by SPD General Secretary Kevin Kühnert. Only recently she banned and disbanded the “Hammerskins” and the racist-ethnic association “Artgemeinschaft”.
In addition, your house has initiated or already completed some important legislative proposals: the Skilled Immigration Act or the reform of nationality law, for example. From the Chancellor’s perspective, his Interior Minister is probably working effectively and assertively.
The quiet Nancy
But the problem is: the Chancellor’s view of Faeser and the population’s view of Faeser are likely to differ massively from one another. She simply cannot manage to sell her successes – especially not in the right-wing conservative camp.
A good example of this is the reform of nationality law. It is therefore faster to obtain German citizenship because the deadlines have been shortened. At the same time, however, Faeser has set the hurdles for faster acquisition of citizenship so high that there has been strong criticism from the left-wing political spectrum. For example, the reform makes naturalization into the social system almost impossible because you can only apply if you and your family can finance yourself and your family independently and without state aid. In order to speed up naturalization, the required language level was also increased to the level required to study at a German university.
But just a day later, the AfD gave a press conference and demanded exactly that in order to receive German citizenship: no naturalization into the social system, and the migrants should speak German “very well.” The AfD dismissed the fact that these demands had already been implemented in the draft law. The Union continued to rumble that Faeser was “selling away” German citizenship – although it was the comparatively laxer law of the grand coalition that Faeser partly tightened with the reform. And in fact: the opposition is louder and can influence the public discussion more than the Federal Minister of the Interior.
On the cons list
The Chancellor’s imaginary con list should therefore include: catastrophic communication – and not just because it cannot sell its successes. The way she deals with current topics sometimes doesn’t seem to have been fully thought out. Apparently she often cannot correctly assess the potential for outrage among the population and the opposition.
For example, their dealings with the fired head of the Federal Institute for Information Security (BSI), Arne Schönbohm, certainly cost the SPD votes in the state elections. The opposition repeatedly accused Faeser of having the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution spy on Schönbohm – which of course they are not allowed to do, which would be a massive abuse of the intelligence services. Faeser repeatedly denied this.
When the head of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Thomas Haldenwang, finally confirmed that Faeser had behaved correctly, it was already far too late. The Union and the AfD had pushed the debate loudly for so many weeks that Haldenwang could hardly be heard anymore.
Many people were angry that Faeser kept the Interior Committee waiting for weeks to answer its questions about Schönbohm. This made many people suspicious of her and it stuck with her. What was completely overlooked was the fact that Faeser wanted to answer questions from the Interior Committee weeks before it was expressly invited to do so. She was there several times without being asked any questions. That’s why she didn’t go there later. Maybe defiance played a role, maybe she actually had a doctor’s appointment – but the public impact of that decision was catastrophic.
The successes of the AfD
At this point you also have to look at the results of the AfD in both federal states. Because there is a causal connection between the Interior Ministry and the AfD’s success. In Hesse and Bavaria, the partly right-wing extremist party became the second strongest force, also with the issue of migration. Undoubtedly an important issue, municipalities continue to groan under the responsibility of providing good care to more and more people.
In addition to migration policy, there are other pressing problems in this country. For example, the state of the economy, the lack of education, the housing shortage. Germany would have all of these problems even without migration. But because all established parties were willing to jump over the AfD’s baton, the AfD was able to campaign on migration policy.
Faeser’s arguments often go into detail, but are just as often drowned out by supposedly simpler solutions. For example, when it comes to stationary border controls. Faeser’s – quite understandable – explanation as to why permanently installed controls on the border with Austria make sense, but not on the borders with Poland and the Czech Republic, was largely ignored.
But if she cannot sell her ideas and successes, that will strengthen the AfD. Of course, their election results are not entirely their fault. The Union also faces criticism for campaigning on an issue that is emotionally charged and polarizing. Just like the traffic light would have to ask itself whether it shouldn’t argue behind closed doors.
Despite everything, Faeser doesn’t wobble
Despite the disastrous election results in Hesse, the Federal Interior Minister’s chair does not shake. The party committees supported her after the election. One day after the election, government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit let the Chancellor say that he would continue to stick to it.
Scholz had always made his return ticket independent of the election result. Maybe he’s even secretly relieved that he doesn’t have to let Faeser move to Wiesbaden. Because good domestic politicians are hard to find in the SPD.
According to the principle of parity, Faeser should have been replaced by a woman who could have seamlessly taken over her duties – and such a person is not exactly on the cards. The Chancellor has many good reasons to stick with Faeser. Historically worst election result or not.