Dhe chancellor of the self-proclaimed progressive coalition is now ensuring the return of old-school power politics. He himself may have thought it possible, after all, his speech on February 27, turning the tide was already a guideline decision for the country. But Scholz’s word of power on the nuclear power plant issue caused some unrest among the Greens.
After the general election, they initially met bilaterally with the FDP in order to establish a new style of partnership in politics. Joint solutions should be found for political problems based on responsibility for the country, not based on party ideology.
This “citrus coalition” already saw itself as the true power center of the traffic light. In this logic, the chancellor’s authority to issue guidelines was only an overestimated concept of the constitution.
FDP and Greens in wrong roles
But Olaf Scholz’s word of power on the nuclear issue shows that when it comes down to it, this coalition does not fall back on common sense, but the chancellor leafs through the Basic Law. The Greens in particular have walled themselves in so much that they can no longer immediately see that Scholz’s decision is much closer to their position than to that of the FDP.
The FDP, on the other hand, which actually suffered a defeat because only one nuclear power plant is supposed to run for just three and a half months longer, sees itself as the winner. Reversed roles. But the Greens acted tactically unwisely, drew red lines, although it was clear that a compromise would have to be made.
While acknowledging the long way the anti-nuclear party has come, at a certain point insistence on principles turns into irresponsibility.
If it is now said that the brief continued operation of the Emsland nuclear power plant is only symbolic anyway, because there is not much energy left to get, then the question arises all the more: How can the Greens block themselves from further measures? The Green Foreign Minister Baerbock warned of possible riots due to the anger in the country, and at the same time the coalition cannot reach an agreement on the nuclear issue. That’s not a good sign. And the FDP and Greens are back where they were before the citrus coalition harmony: They consider each other to be stubborn ideologues.
Scholz does it like Merkel
Habeck, the man of pain, has avoided many a difficult dispute by only wanting to send about two nuclear power plants to the operational reserve, but not to the stretching operation. In addition, consideration was given to the state elections in Lower Saxony. Habeck now wants to campaign for the Chancellor’s decision, and you can tell that he is relieved. The fact that the economy and climate minister has to borrow the chancellor’s authority against his own parliamentary group is a sign of weakness.
But even the chancellor is only emerging from this conflict stronger for the time being. Scholz has not brought about or wanted to bring about any decision in the nuclear power plant dispute at the negotiating table for several weeks. In the past, a chancellor benefited greatly from hovering over the quarrels for as long as possible and constantly assuring that everything would end well. Scholz learned a lot from Merkel. With his long wait, he also contributed to the discord in the traffic lights. And citizens are increasingly asking themselves: Who should I trust?
The hierarchies in the coalition have now been clarified. Basically, Scholz only brought about an arbitration with the authority to set guidelines, which is not surprising in the matter. In one – given the multiple crises – comparatively small issue, the Chancellor had to use this sharp sword. The call that he finally has to take action will reach him even more frequently from many different places in the future.
Possibly in half a year. Because it remains to be seen whether the nuclear power plant question has been finally clarified as it now seems – and also depends, for example, on the commissioning of the German LNG terminals. Scholz will have to be careful that his powerful word of power doesn’t shrink after all.
The question remains, which one can also ask in view of the many traffic light sensitivities: Is all this actually good for this country? Scholz made the right decision on the matter. But each of the three traffic light partners left the dispute with obvious injuries. It is possible that there will be even tougher clashes before the winter after next. SPD, FDP and Greens are still in the middle of the energy crisis, and the Scholz word doesn’t change that.
