Political Identity Crisis

Thomas Meyer is a political scientist at Dortmund University and director of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation's political academy. He is also deputy head of the Social Democratic Party's (SPD) Core Values Commission.

DW-WORLD.DE: Membership of Germany's mainstream parties has been steadily dwindling. If this trend continues, does it mean their days are numbered?

Thomas Meyer: Membership is on the decline, so in this respect the role of the mainstream parties is changing. More parties are needed in order to form government coalitions, and there are more parties in the party system, which inevitably means the system is changing.

Does that the fact that the mainstream parties are shrinking mean that the state has a more limited power to act?

No, not directly. Many countries have stable democracies despite having many more parties. Government coalitions might need four or five parties. The process of forming a coalition might be trickier, but it by no means weakens the state.

The Social Democrats are suffering the sharpest decline in membership. Why is this?

Right now, the SPD's role is an especially difficult one. The party is trapped between a Christian Democratic party (CDU) which has shifted to the left and appears to be adopting some of the Social Democrats' traditional positions, and the new Left party which is occupying what used to be the Social Democrats' far-left ground. Sandwiched between these two poles, the party is having trouble maintaining its identity and remaining on the offensive.

To what extent is the Left party responsible for the crisis within the SPD?

The Left party is, to some extent, an expression of this crisis. It is partly made up of left-wing party members whom the SPD was unable to integrate into its policies and political style. Its founding is definitely one of the factors contributing to the SPD's crisis.

Are Lafontaine and Co. [former SPD members who left to establish an alternative party, the Left] luring voters away from the SPD?

Definitely, to some extent. If the Left party attracts ten percent of voters then a large part, if not the majority of these voters, are bound to be disappointed SPD voters.

On the whole, the Left party stands for traditional SPD positions while the CDU stands for neo-liberal SPD positions. Meanwhile, the Greens are further left than the SPD on social and economic issues. Is there any political ground the SPD can still claim as its own?

That description is a little too pat. The CDU is trying to muscle in on some SDP territory, but the neo-liberal elements of the CDU political agenda are still intact. The Left party has moved in on some of the SPD past positions, which had become politically untenable. Stuck in the middle, the SDP is unable to assert itself. But basically, this would not be impossible were the party to better push through its social democratic positions, which are in fact perfectly viable right now.

Within the grand coalition, the CDU is increasingly to the left of the SPD. Does the CDU have a social conscience?

The CDU has always been contradictory, poised between the social elements drawn from its Catholic social doctrine, and the neo-liberal, political substance based on the party's economic principles. It can show either one of these faces according to election results and public opinion. For now, after the last, very close election, in which the party fared far worse than it had expected to, it is making an effort to show its social face.

Does the SDP still have a loyal base?

Yes it does, but all the parties are seeing their bases shrink. The number of swing voters is on the rise. That hits other parties as much as it does the SPD.

Any young people with political ideals no longer join the political parties but NGOs instead -- as illustrated by the scenes at the G8 we all saw on television. Why are the political parties no longer so attractive to young people?

Many young people prefer smaller-scale organizations, where they feel they might have some effect and which are concerned with just one or two issues they can easily follow. They feel that the mainstream parties, and large-scale organizations in general, are too anonymous, concerned with too many issues and too willing to compromise. The result is that young people are not terribly interested in the parties in their current form.

Top SPD politicians Matthias Platzeck, Peer Steinbrück and Frank-Walter Steinmeier recently published their book "Auf der Höhe der Zeit" about social democracy and progress in the 21st century. One of the key terms in the book is the "careful welfare state." What's new about this concept?

Basically, the idea is to adopt certain elements of the Scandinavian welfare state, primarily with more investment in education, more equal opportunities within education, low-risk political strategies which allow people to thrive in today's changing society and therefore depend on less long-term welfare support. Basically, it's a very sensible project but not necessarily a new one. Parts of it already featured in the SPD's Berlin program in 1989. But in this more extensive version it sets new foci and will serve as the cornerstone of the SPD's new party platform.

The SPD will unveil its new policy statements in October. Can we expect anything new?

There will be a number of new foci: the careful welfare state, a strong emphasis on the environment, especially in the area of climate policy, a strong emphasis on Europe and globalization policies. We won't be seeing a new SPD but there will be a greater, better and more offensive emphasis on building the foundations for social democracy in the age of globalization.

SPD chief Kurt Beck is not doing too well in the popularity stakes. Does the SPD need a media star like Gerhard Schröder to front it?

In the past we have seen that politicians such as Helmut Kohl, did badly in the opinion polls but were still elected because they had certain persuasive characteristics and persuasive platforms. Beck may well find himself in a similar position. Surveys are not the same as elections, and for the time being it remains to be seen whether Beck can mobilize support. But the next elections are still a long way off.

In the last election, observers said that Merkel would never be as media savvy as Schröder. But a look at current opinion polls suggests that she has managed to cut an even better figure within the media than her predecessor. Is that true?

Merkel has managed to create a very good media presence. She's accepted both by the public and the media. It's helped that she's concentrated heavily on foreign policy. It's always easy to boost popularity with foreign policy: It's not controversial domestically, and it always looks good to be seen with top international politicians. That also goes to show that certain politicians can grow into their role, and if they are given the opportunity, they can gain unexpected support.