Italian
Behind the scenes of a standstill that worries Berlin and the whole of Europe
BERLIN. Friedrich Merz left the Bundestag chamber yesterday with a composed expression, but visibly upset. The candidacy that was supposed to lead him to the Chancellery, after weeks of negotiations and precise parliamentary arithmetic, was shattered against the relentless mathematics of German democracy. The leader of the CDU did not achieve the absolute majority necessary to be elected to lead the government. A significant blow not only for his party, but also for the political stability of the entire country.
To fully understand what is happening in Berlin, it is necessary to delve into the refined – and sometimes ruthless – mechanism that regulates the formation of the government in Germany. Unlike in other European countries, here the election of the Chancellor is not a matter of informal consultations and agreements at the Quirinal: it is a formal process, marked step by step by Article 63 of the Basic Law, the Grundgesetz, which has been the cornerstone of German institutional stability since the post-war period.
It all starts with a proposal: the federal president, a figure of guarantee, proposes a name for the Chancellery to the Bundestag. In this case, Friedrich Merz. The Parliament then votes, and to elect him an absolute majority is needed: half of the deputies plus one. Not a majority among those present, but of the entire assembly. Merz, in the first vote, did not reach that threshold. His party remains the strongest, but not enough to govern alone, nor even with the allies available so far.
At this point, a delicate and politically fluid phase begins: the Bundestag has fourteen days to find a solution. During these two weeks, it can vote multiple times, even on alternative candidates. There is no limit to the number of attempts: what matters is that, before the deadline, someone manages to obtain the absolute majority required by the Constitution. This is where the real negotiations begin, behind the scenes of politics: a compromise candidate is sought, a broader coalition is formed, or the same candidate is insisted upon in the hope that some opponents will soften their stance.
However, if even these fourteen days pass without success, we enter the third and final phase. The Bundestag votes one last time, and this time a simple majority is enough: the winner is the one who gets more votes, even if they do not exceed the threshold of an absolute majority. But beware, it’s still not the end. In this scenario, it’s up to the federal president again to decide whether to accept that name and appoint the chancellor, or to dissolve the Parliament and call for new elections. It’s a decision that weighs heavily, because it means either forcing a government with limited parliamentary support or admitting the failure of the entire process and starting over.
What is happening now in Germany is not just a leadership crisis, it is a test of its constitutional system. A system designed to prevent weak governments from arising by chance, but also capable – if necessary – of resetting everything and giving the word back to the voters. At a time when Europe is facing international tensions, economic instability, and internal fractures, the absence of a strong German government is not a local issue: it is a continental problem.
The CDU of Merz is now at a crossroads: to insist on a candidate who doesn’t have the numbers, or to open up to new, perhaps painful, agreements with opposing parties. The SPD, the Greens, and the Liberals, on the other hand, are observing and waiting: nobody wants to burn out too soon, but nobody can afford the luxury of immobility. Time is running out, Germany is waiting, Europe is watching. And the Bundestag, with the fierce calm of parliamentary democracy, continues to vote.
