Angela Merkel’s departure from politics in 2021 marked the end of an era not only for Germany but also for global geopolitics. After 16 years as Chancellor, Merkel left behind a legacy of stability, pragmatism, and cautious leadership—a stark contrast to the turbulent political landscape that unfolded post-2021. As Europe faces new challenges, some Germans and global observers are questioning whether her style of leadership is now more needed than ever. But who exactly misses Merkel, and why? And, more importantly, how does her absence continue to resonate in Germany and beyond?
Merkel was often dubbed the “steady hand” in a world increasingly marked by upheavals and crises. Her leadership style wasn’t marked by grandstanding or sweeping reforms, but by measured, step-by-step solutions and a focus on finding consensus. For better or worse, her era became synonymous with stability. This appealed particularly to an aging population and a business community that valued economic predictability.
Many older Germans appreciated her reserved demeanor and reliability, which provided a sense of security amidst economic uncertainty and geopolitical tensions. It’s no surprise then that, as Europe faces a series of crises—an energy shortage, war in Ukraine, and increasing polarization—some in Germany long for Merkel’s pragmatic crisis management.
For Merkel’s supporters, the nostalgia is real. When her successor Olaf Scholz struggled to respond to crises with the same authority Merkel once exuded, Merkel’s era began to look like a golden age. Her diplomatic tact, particularly her ability to engage with difficult leaders such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin and former U.S. President Donald Trump, was widely seen as a skill that few leaders possessed. She managed these relationships without excessive confrontation, avoiding reckless escalations.
Post-Merkel, a palpable sense of uncertainty emerged as Europe navigated the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and soaring inflation. Scholz, although once marketed as “Merkel 2.0,” has not yet commanded the same gravitas, leading many to question if Germany had underappreciated Merkel’s understated style.
Yet, Merkel’s departure wasn’t lamented by everyone. Merkel’s critics viewed her leadership as overly cautious, lacking bold vision. Her policies on immigration and climate change, for example, faced harsh criticism. The 2015 refugee crisis saw Merkel opening Germany’s doors to over a million asylum seekers—a decision that defined her career and remains divisive. While celebrated by many for its humanitarian values, it led to the rise of far-right movements and challenges with integration that continue to affect Germany’s political discourse.
For some, Merkel’s era was one of missed opportunities, particularly concerning structural reforms. The younger generations, in particular, have expressed frustrations that Merkel did not do enough to address long-term issues like digitalization, climate action, and income inequality. While she was an adept crisis manager, her tenure was also criticized for a reluctance to disrupt the status quo.
Merkel’s absence has been felt well beyond Germany’s borders. During her tenure, she became the de facto leader of the European Union, often stepping in to mediate disputes or drive consensus on major issues. In moments of European crisis, it was often Merkel’s voice that rallied member states toward unity—whether during the Eurozone crisis or the migration crisis.
Now, in her absence, the EU struggles with defining clear leadership amidst growing divisions. The war in Ukraine exposed weaknesses in Europe’s collective decision-making processes and its dependence on Russian energy—a relationship Merkel was instrumental in cultivating. Her approach to handling Putin is now being reevaluated, with critics arguing that her policy of “Wandel durch Handel” (change through trade) may have emboldened Russian aggression by prioritizing economic ties over strategic caution.
Eastern European nations like Poland and the Baltic states have voiced skepticism of Merkel’s legacy, arguing that her decisions contributed to the EU’s overreliance on Russian energy and delayed preparations for deterrence against Moscow.
Merkel’s replacement, Olaf Scholz, inherited a volatile political environment. Dubbed the “Scholzomat” for his robotic demeanor, Scholz initially appeared to follow in Merkel’s footsteps. However, as crises unfolded, the differences in their leadership styles became more evident. Scholz faced criticism for being slow to respond and lacking the aura of authority Merkel projected in challenging times.
While Merkel was often deliberate and reserved, she could swiftly pivot when required, demonstrating a level of adaptability that Scholz has yet to exhibit. His administration’s handling of energy shortages and aid to Ukraine has drawn mixed reactions, and some have expressed doubts about whether Scholz’s coalition can maintain the stability Merkel’s leadership once provided.
Merkel herself remains out of the political spotlight, enjoying a quiet life in retirement. While she occasionally comments on current affairs, she has mostly resisted the urge to publicly critique her successors, which is in line with her understated style. However, her continued presence in public consciousness reflects the lasting imprint she left on both German and European politics.
Many political scientists and historians now view her legacy with a dual lens: On one hand, she is credited with preserving stability during tumultuous times, but on the other, she is also seen as someone who left her successors to grapple with unresolved challenges.
So, who misses Merkel? It’s clear that many older Germans and centrist voters long for the return of the cautious, steady leadership that characterized her tenure. For them, Merkel’s era represents a time of consistency, which stands in contrast to today’s growing uncertainty. Diplomats and international leaders who relied on her steady hand in European and global affairs have also expressed a yearning for her quiet yet decisive diplomacy.
However, for younger generations and Merkel’s critics, her departure symbolizes an opportunity for change. They are eager to see bolder leadership, particularly in areas like climate change, social justice, and economic reforms. To them, Merkel’s stability came at the cost of necessary transformation.
The question of whether Merkel is missed ultimately depends on one’s perspective on what constitutes strong leadership. Was she the stabilizing force Europe needed during her tenure, or did her cautious approach hold back progress on critical issues? In either case, her influence is hard to ignore, and her absence leaves a leadership void in Europe that, in these times of crisis, remains challenging to fill.
In the post-Merkel world, one thing is clear: Whether missed or not, Merkel’s shadow looms large over both Germany and Europe, and her legacy continues to shape political discourse today.
No comments:
Post a Comment