PERHAPS the problem was the format. Germany’s main television broadcasters had proposed livening up the country’s TV debate by introducing a studio audience and splitting the four (four!) presenters into two shifts. But Angela Merkel said no. The chancellor also refused to do more than one debate.
Whatever the reason, last night’s showdown was a lacklustre affair. Martin Schulz, the struggling Social Democratic (SPD) challenger for the chancellorship, had been expected to pull out the stops and put Mrs Merkel on the spot over her record and plans for the future. He managed no such thing, seeming hesitant and nervous.
The two exchanged comments about a range of subjects, including refugees, Turkey, inequality and the state of the Germany car industry. There were some notable moments. Mr Schulz criticised the government for failing to process asylum applications fast enough and upbraided the chancellor about social justice: “Germany is a prosperous country but that doesn’t mean all Germans are prosperous”.
Invited to say whether there is a place for Islam in Germany, Mrs Merkel gave a clear and positive response where lesser Europeans politicians would have hedged. She also seemed to announce a new position on EU accession talks with Ankara: “The fact is that Turkey should not become an EU member,” she said. The quality of the exchange picked up towards the end as the two picked over the balance between security and freedom.
Yet if the point of the debate was to reveal the differences between the candidates and present voters with a clash of ideas about the big issues affecting Germany’s future, it was a failure.
The presenters’ questions were often winding and unspecific. That there were four of them prevented almost any serious interrogation of the politicians’ answers. Asked whether marriage is between a man and a woman, for example, Mrs Merkel was allowed to ramble on, not answering the question. Asked about Donald Trump she opted to speak about Turkey. No-one intervened to return her to the question asked.
Education did not come up. Nor for the most part did any questions pertaining to Germany’s economic future, nor about its role in Europe and the world. In fact, most of the debate was curiously backward looking. The two were allowed to waste minutes exchanging mildly contrasting comments about an already-implemented road tolling policy introduced by the grand coalition government of which both candidates’ parties are part.
That it was such a bloodless affair will benefit Mrs Merkel most of the two. This was Mr Schulz’s one big chance to change the direction and narrative of the election campaign, and he blew it. But the real winners of the debate were probably the smaller parties: the pro-business FDP, the socialist Left party, the Greens and (I fear most of all) the nationalist AfD.
The real loser of the debate was Germany. The country is doing well, without a doubt. But huge questions hang over its future: about its energy supplies, about its business model, about the euro zone, about its defence responsibilities, about its infrastructure and about the very fabric and identity of the country in an age of migration. The debate lasted fully 90 minutes but these questions were not properly discussed, or in many cases even raised. An opportunity was missed.