It is said that the chancellor had already presented a results paper at the beginning of the night session of the coalition committee. It is said that Olaf Scholz always had a plan to convince the Americans to supply tanks. It is said that he was always convinced that he would emerge from the Bundestag election campaign as chancellor.
She tells his environment again and again: stories about the mastermind Olaf Scholz. Whatever happens politically, he planned everything well in advance and then implemented it secretly, quietly. But how does that fit in with the fact that the Germans consider him to be weak in leadership?
Scholz, of all people, who once promised full-bodiedly: “Anyone who orders a tour from me will also get it” – now apparently has delivery problems. After all, more than half (51 percent) of those surveyed by the RTL/ntv trend barometer share the impression of leadership weakness. Well, half, you could say, what does that even mean? A comparison makes it clear that these are quite worrying numbers for Scholz: in the 2013 election campaign, around 77 percent considered Merkel to be a strong leader, in the 2017 election campaign it was still 76 percent.
Why do you see Scholz so differently? Above all, there is one reason for the bad image of the chancellor – and that is he himself. Because all the supposedly long-cherished plans remained under wraps for just as long until they were implemented. The coalition committee met for a record 30 hours before coming up with a result. Weeks passed before Germany and the United States confirmed the tank deliveries to Ukraine, during which most military experts shouted: finally do something. And for many months during the election campaign, it really seemed like a completely naïve pipe dream for the SPD to appoint the chancellor again.
This silence is sometimes useful in negotiations, perhaps that’s exactly why Scholz is successful. But for the outside world it is a problem. The chancellor then seems as if he would wait and see, let the others do their thing, and see what is in store for him. He doesn’t come across as one would expect from a chancellor. He doesn’t go ahead, doesn’t say how he imagines the result to be. Don’t do (at least publicly) what is commonly understood as leadership.
And then there’s another problem with this strategy: it’s not really controllable. In hindsight, it’s easy to say that that’s exactly what we wanted. If a marathon runner doesn’t say what his ideal time is before the competition, then when he reaches the finish line he can always say: I just wanted to keep going. If Scholz doesn’t get his wishes through, he can still say in the end that he never had them.
So if Scholz wants to change the image, if he wants to appear as a strong leader, then he would have to make announcements. Before the trial, public and verifiable. Or Scholz has to do Merkel instead – sit it out, just pull through, not explaining what he wants and is doing until people eventually accept it as leadership. Even his predecessor wasn’t known for her advances, but she was still recognized as a leader. At least after a few years. In 2001 there was also an RTL survey about Angela Merkel, she had been party leader for just a year – and lo and behold: 50 percent thought she was weak in leadership at the time.
