Berlin According to the Mainz political scientist Kai Arzheimer, Chancellor Olaf Scholz is partly responsible for the renewed escalation in the debate about the heating law. “One gets the impression that Scholz is letting the conflicts in the coalition run for a very long time in order to then resolve them with a word of power,” said Arzheimer. “He and the SPD may even benefit from this in the short term. But that is detrimental to trust in government.”
Arzheimer is also critical of the behavior of the FDP after the Federal Constitutional Court ordered the temporary halt to the heating law. The deputy FDP chairman Wolfgang Kubicki said that this would give the Greens the reward for having put inexplicable pressure on the process. Arzheimer said: “The fact that you are now celebrating the defeat of your own faction leaders before the Constitutional Court is, to put it mildly, unusual and not very conducive to cooperation.”
The political scientist believes it is possible that the AfD will now receive further support. “In the public discussion about the Building Energy Act, with the involvement of the FDP, the impression was created that the Greens are waging a campaign against homeowners who want to force them to replace their heating systems for ideological reasons,” he explained. “Such feelings of threat certainly contribute to the success of the AfD, which presents itself as the party of diesel drivers and oil heaters.”
Read the full interview here:
Mr. Arzheimer, leader of the Union parliamentary group Friedrich Merz, sees the postponement of the vote on the heating law forced by the Federal Constitutional Court as a “severe defeat” for the federal government. Would you agree with that?
After months of public debate about the law, this new delay will certainly be seen by the public as further evidence that the traffic light doesn’t seem to be working very well at the moment. Ultimately, this postponement will not change anything at the end of the process, so it is not a defeat. In addition, the urgent motion and decision relate only to the speed of the parliamentary procedure, not to the content of the law.
The traffic light actually wanted to send a signal of unity when the law was passed. Now the FDP applauds the court decision and criticizes the Greens. What does that say about the coalition climate?
Such reactions confirm the picture of a coalition that is blocking itself in its central projects. The law in its present form was negotiated between the heads of the coalition and approved by the cabinet, in which the FDP holds central ministerial posts.
>> Read here: Stamp in the heating law and start all over again – a comment
And yet the criticism of the coalition partner.
Of course, it is legitimate if parliamentarians still wish for more time for processing in the Bundestag. The fact that one is now celebrating the defeat of one’s own faction leaders before the Constitutional Court is, to put it mildly, unusual and not very conducive to cooperation.
Heilmann on the heating law: “I did the traffic light a favor”
This week there was also an open dispute between the FDP and the Greens on the federal budget – on parental allowance. Are there cracks in the coalition here?
The conflicts within the coalition can already be seen in the election programs: in some socio-political issues, the intersections are quite large; there are conflicts in questions of economic distribution, in the prioritization of environmental and climate protection measures, and in transport and environmental policy.
What is striking, however, is how these conflicts – certainly also under the pressure of the multiple and ongoing crises that the government has had to deal with since it started – are addressed and carried out in public. The impression arises that one does not allow oneself success and that once agreements and compromises have been made, they are not kept.
>> Read here: Gambled high in the heating dispute and won – This is the new star of the union faction
Is the obviously not smooth government action a fertile ground for the AfD?
The ongoing dispute distracts from the joint successes of the coalition, which also exists. In the public discussion about the Building Energy Act, with the participation of the FDP, the impression was created that the Greens are waging a campaign against homeowners who want to force them to replace their heating systems for ideological reasons. Such feelings of threat certainly contribute to the success of the AfD, which presents itself as the party of diesel drivers and oil heaters. However, this should not distract from the fact that the most important motive for voting for the AfD is the rejection of immigration and immigrants.
Could the Union also benefit because a CDU MP forced the decision in Karlsruhe?
The excitement about the verdict of the constitutional court will have subsided in a few weeks. I don’t think the Union will benefit from this beyond the day.
State elections will be held in Hesse and Bavaria in autumn. Could the squabbling over the heating law have a significant impact on the election campaigns? With what consequences?
When Söder appeared at the protests against the heating law, you could see very well that, at least for those for whom the issue is particularly important, AfD and Freie Wahler are more likely to benefit from the conflict than the Union. Incidentally, the Union voted in favor of the Paris Agreement and the resulting emission limits, which can only be achieved – if at all – by drastic savings in the building sector.
So not a campaign issue?
Modern, climate-friendly heating systems are produced and installed by German industry, which the Union sees as its advocate. In my view, the CDU and CSU would be ill-advised to conduct a heating election campaign.
How do you see the Chancellor’s role? Should Olaf Scholz have gotten more involved to prevent the current escalation in the heating issue?
Yes. One gets the impression that Scholz is letting the conflicts in the coalition run for a very long time in order to then resolve them with a word of power. He and the SPD may even benefit from this in the short term. But this is damaging to trust in the government.
Remarkably, the Chancellor does not see the traffic light dispute as the main reason for the AfD’s strengthening. Are such assessments relevant?
I agree that there are other and more important factors that contribute to the current strength of the AfD. These include, above all, the war of aggression against Ukraine and the associated refugee movements and economic upheavals, but also attempts from the centre-right camp to make use of AfD topics and vocabulary for themselves. Nevertheless, in view of the obvious problems in the traffic light, it seems a bit strange to deny any responsibility at this point.
How can the coalition get the curve back – also with a view to the strength of the AfD?
Apart from the predetermined breaking points mentioned above, the traffic light primarily has a communication problem both internally and externally. Internally, conflicts should be dealt with objectively and less noisily, and agreements should be kept.
Externally, she should talk more about future opportunities and what we have achieved together in Germany, such as securing the energy supply last winter or the largely problem-free and solidary reception of refugees from Ukraine, instead of fighting each other and separating from the to let the opposition drift in front of you.
More: The traffic light specifies the plans for replacing the heating system