Germany’s Free Democrats

The endangered queenmaker

Angela Merkel’s hold on power may yet depend on the fate of Germany’s struggling liberal party

See article

Readers' comments



The FDP used to have some clasical liberal (libertarian) roots but the party has abandoned them. Today it stands for socialisation and centralization in the EU debt crisis and otherwise panders to special interests. This is no pro-market party any more.
No need to shed any tears.


A large proportion of Germans feel there is no party that represents their interest. They can only choose between communists and four socialist parties which may well form a "grand coalition" so that all of them can sit at the feeding trough together. It seems hardly worth going to the voting booth.


Germans invented socialism, Germans are socialists at their hearts. Even the liberals in Germany are left wing.

gdpbull in reply to environmentalist

He's not talking about Marx, the founder of communism. He's talking about Bismarck and Kaiser Wilhelm I. It was actually the Kaiser who really pushed the old age pension and health care. The country was brand new. He was the Prussian Kaiser who was called first among equals because a lot of the other states that made up the new country also had their royalties. He wanted to be POPULAR. Bismarck, the first Chancellor of the new country was against it, but the Kaiser finally turned him and he also began supporting the social programs. So I would say Kaiser Wilhelm I was the father of socialism.

environmentalist in reply to gdpbull

>> He's talking about Bismarck and Kaiser Wilhelm I.

If so he is even more wrong.

>> [stuff about Kaiser implementing some social programs. So I would say Kaiser Wilhelm I was the father of socialism.

This is just ignorant. Republicans have been pushing a bogus definition of social programs as socialism even though its a complete lie.

Here's the proper definition from Wikipedia: "Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy".

So no, any way you cut Kaiser Wilhelm I was not the father of socialism.

gdpbull in reply to environmentalist

Ok well, maybe he's not the "father" of socialism, but at the Kaiser's urging, Bismarck introduced the welfare bill to the Reichtag, which then passed So Germany was the first country to implement a welfare program. So maybe that's not full socialism. I get that too.

Anyway, here is a link from none other than the US Social Security Administration, which backs up what I say. Furthermore, it says the US social security system was modelled after Germany's welfare system.

environmentalist in reply to gdpbull

You keep on confusing social programs with socialism.

Social programs are good. How good are they? so good that Republicans cannot come with coherent reasons to attack them and thus have to resort to false equivalences between social programs and socialism simply on the basis that they share the first five letters (and nothing else) in their names.


The FDP has long lost it's position of foremost civil-rights defender to the Greens, who evolved from a leftist to a middle-class centrist party and replaced their anti-business instincts with some economic competence. At the same time the FDP completely failed to adopt sustainability as a policy goal when the subject gained popularity among its core voters. This leaves a manifesto that is perceived as technocratic and dominated by vested interests (doctors, pharmacists, lawyers and, most recently, hoteliers). These groups are just too small to lift the party above 5%.

guest-iswiioi in reply to Oreg

@Greg:Absolutely right. FDP has been practicing the 'Oldest Profession' for past 30 or so years, whoever the client happens to be. Self-satisfied as they are, they did not see the competition in Greens! This is already happening to CDU, CSU and SPD as well. They have all lost the 'cutting edge'. So it is just a matter of time... (By the way, I am not in favor of 'Greens' either.)


The FDP didn't deliver on any of the promises made during the last few elcetion campaigns to the middle class. Less taxes and social insurance fees for the average Hans on the street, so there would be more available income in relation to the gross salary. Then, a correction of the supersized subvention mechanism for the renewable energies. Fight the big brother tendencies of the German government. And so on.

The delivered: nil, zero, zilch.

So there is no reason at all this class should again vote for this special-interest party. These interests being those of hotel owners, the health industry, and of course the finance industry.

Desiree McCourt

First of all, Germany as such is by far, rather left and social orientated. In what other conservative ruled country would such a harum-scarum change of Energy Policy be possible let alone considered?

The mistake of the German Liberal FDP (which policies is comparable to the British Conservatives and not to compare with British Liberals) was to sacrify significant parts of their election manifesto 2009 to a coaltion with Ms Merkels party.

Furthermore, people in Germany don't have the feeling of lacking "Freedom", which is constantly demanded by the Liberals. Also the Liberals ignored the socio change of their traditional voters. The intelligensia and middle-class reorientated towards green and more social topics.

Finally, the FDP lacks unique political topics and possible leading and trustworthy men and women. Either they are too young or too old. A gap of possible respectable leaders of the age between 45 to 60 yrs. appears.

To be fair - the political climate in Germany has changed since Scheel and Genscher (mentioned by someone before). Beeing a politician in Berlin seems to be close to beeing a member of a suicide squad. Thinking of the losses in the past 3 yrs.

Adam Onge

Philipp Rösler doesn't seem to be a very popular leader. The Liberals need a more charismatic leader (I still remember Scheel and Genscher!).
In any case, the FDP would need a lot of "Zweitstimmen" from the CDU voters if they want to beat 5%. Merkel can definitely help them if she wants to!


There is a mistake in the article. Mr Lindner is indeed member of the Bundestag! GB


I will admit that I am not a German, but this article seems to be a bit too kind to the FDP.

I don't see how forcing more "tax reform" would have shored up its popularity post 2009. As Kurt Lessing notes here, the FDP was interested in tax cuts, putting it at odds with the plan to balance the federal budget per the Constitution. This does indeed sound reminiscent of US Republicans, at least in the 2001-2009 period. I'm not sure why cutting taxes and creating deficits would have been such a lovely or popular idea.

If the FDP fails to make the 5% threshold, that's democracy. I don't see that as a "the silencing of a liberal voice" - it's not some sort of censorship, and they can always run in the next election, plus all the Laender elections. Are they "too big to fail"? If they are not connecting with voters, they don't have some "right" to be in the Bundestag, just because their policies superficially resemble the types that the Economist supports.

Finally, it's amazing this whole article was written on the decline of the FDP's fortunes, yet absolutely no mention was made of Guido Westerwelle. He was party chairman from 2001 to 2011! And FM after the 2009 election! A lot of the downturn has to be attributed to him and his declining popularity and public image.

Kurt Lessing

The liberalism of the FDP these days focuses too much on the liberty to sleep under bridges. Their hallmark once were civil rights, held up only today by the minister of justice, Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger (yes, the name sounds funny to German ears, too)who means well, but is isolated in her party. For years their only theme was to get the taxes down reminding the zealotery of the Tea Party. When the entered government, I expected them to pull out that reform of Germany's kafkaesque tax code they had ample time to prepare. Only change of tax laws was a reduction of VAT for hoteliers. Then it came to light, that the Moevenpick group (hotels) had donated generously to party funds.
I consider myself a liberal(European definition)and have sometimes voted for them in the past, but even I can't think of any reason why I would need the FDP any more.
Those on the left hate the guts of Rösler and Co. and the more socially conservative vote for the Christian Democrats anyway.

Clastics in reply to Kurt Lessing

Germany currently has cash-on-cash expenditures equivalent to approximately 50% of GDP. Most "liberal" (or even "neo-liberal") takes would indicate government expenditure well south of this. It surely isn't reflective of "liberty to sleep under bridges" and from a "liberal" standpoint has substantially negative affects upon economic growth and personal freedom.... If you are looking for a better definition of "liberal," I might suggest starting with work by germany's SE neighbor (the Austrian school).

Clastics in reply to BlueVelvet

I did not state that one was inherently correct and the other incorrect. I merely was arguing that your that your positioning as a "liberal" was in fact incorrect as related to the argument that you were making. My relative positioning towards Keynesian, Monetarist, Liberal, or Neo-liberal has no baring on said argument.


Now here comes the news. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso denied on Thursday that the Union was behind the tough austerity measures that have swept the continent in recent years. "I know many parts of our societies attribute the current difficulties to European Union level and this is not fair because it was not the European Union that created the problems," Barroso told reporters at Dublin Castle on Thursday. Barroso was speaking at a joint press conference with Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny in Dublin to coincide with the beginning of Ireland's tenure of the six-month rotating EU presidency. "I want to make this clear because there is a myth that it is the European Union that imposes difficult policies. It's not true," Barroso said. "The cause of the difficulties some countries are facing is excessive public debt created by national governmentsand irresponsible financial behaviour, that also accumulated excessive private debt including financial bubbles that happened under the responsibility of national supervisors," he added. I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Gun laws: Prayers and pistols
Democracy in America July 11th, 17:43
Daily chart: Justice on trial
Graphic detail July 11th, 13:40
Technology and fashion: Storming the maisons
Schumpeter July 11th, 10:05
Financial literacy: Back to basics
Free exchange July 11th, 10:01


Products and events



