The government communicates through actions, says Chancellor Scholz. But actions don’t speak. The lack of a communicative forehand is increasingly becoming a problem for traffic lights.
In addition to the obligatory annual reviews, another type of accounting will be added this December: the Federal Government’s first-year report. The reviews from the sidelines are sometimes more positive, sometimes more negative. On one point, however, there seems to be a consensus: the chancellor has a communication problem. Reason: Scholz rarely talks, speaks too monotonously and explains too little.
Scholz knows the criticism of his communication from his first office as head of a government. Between 2011 and 2018 he was the first mayor of Hamburg. The comments from back then read literally like today’s: “He doesn’t want to inspire, he wants to govern properly,” wrote the “Hamburger Morgenpost” a few months after Scholz had moved into Hamburg City Hall. He ruled there for another seven years, before rising to become Federal Minister of Finance and Vice-Chancellor.
So Scholz will probably think these days: Is everything going according to plan. Especially since some of the nagging about his communication depicts media stereotypes rather than actual facts. There is one myth that Scholz communicates too little. Phases with little communication are not unusual for a chancellor, but Scholz was very present in the annual overview: five guest contributions, citizen dialogues in Lübeck, Essen, Magdeburg and Gifhorn, umpteen interviews in regional and national newspapers, sixteen episodes of his video podcast and a lot of television presence longer interviews to the surprise appearance on “Joko und Klaas”. Scholz is certainly not the oyster that the FAZ once declared the chancellor to be.
Scholz wants to communicate “through actions”.
On the other hand, Scholz’s way of talking is often criticized. Most of his speeches and statements come across as boring, monotonous and emotionless. These accusations often contradict the demand for authenticity raised by all. One certainly cannot impute a lack of authenticity to the chancellor. Rhetorically trying to make him a Macron would be a bad idea.
Scholz can only rarely fulfill journalistic needs for pathos and punchlines, but all the more so the social desire for stability and calm in unstable and troubled times. When the first bombs fell on Ukraine in February, he credibly assured the insecure Germans that he would do everything possible to prevent the war from escalating westward. And in contrast to other cabinet members, Scholz has never said the word for the “hot autumn” that has now failed to materialize. What some dismiss as “hesitating and hesitating,” others might value as “deliberate and prudent.” 60 percent of voters said in the federal election that Olaf Scholz could lead the country well through crises. Today’s chancellor knows that he wasn’t elected despite his boredom, but because of it. For many people, this quality is the promise of predictability. The worn-out briefcase is the chancellor’s “signature accessory” that fits perfectly.
All of these points obscure the actual problems of communication with the chancellor. Significantly, it was Scholz himself who exposed the fundamental misunderstanding about political communication, which he himself is caught in: “The government communicates through actions,” the “Tagesspiegel” quoted him recently as saying. In his speeches, this mantra often leads to a series of actions that his government has enacted. Strictly speaking, therefore, he does not let the actions speak for themselves, but rather speaks out the actions – but nothing more.
Actions do not speak for themselves
The typical chancellor communication consists of exactly two elements: problem and solution. This can get you through a winter of crisis, but possibly not into a second term of office. Because this type of communication with the chancellor faces at least two challenges in the public competition for sovereignty of interpretation: Firstly, it is communication “from behind”. Just as Scholz likes to rule “from behind”, i.e. let the Greens and FDP publicly advance first in order to later moderate a common line, he also communicates later. This approach hurt him most clearly on the issue of arms supplies to Ukraine. For a long time, the Chancellery kept the amount and type of material supplied secret. When the speculation that Germany was supplying far too few arms to Ukraine had long since become commonplace, a dry list of deliveries was posted on the federal government’s website. Again, the actions should speak for themselves. But they didn’t, which is why the accusation that Germany hardly delivers anything persists to this day, both at home and abroad. The chancellor created this image for himself: Anyone who thinks that the production of politics can replace the presentation of politics hasn’t understood the legitimating function of political communication – or doesn’t care.
The lack of a communicative forehand is also increasingly becoming a traffic light problem because the CDU and CSU have become campaignable again in the opposition. Although the increasing use of populist stylistic devices by the Union is highly questionable, its campaigns have been effective in terms of public opinion on nuclear power and citizen money. Weeks before the Federal Council’s mediation committee on citizen income began its work, the Union had pushed through the interpretation that the traffic light proposal allegedly meant that performance was no longer worthwhile. Friedrich Merz was able to rumble against this central SPD project for weeks without the Chancellor objecting. For the government’s sovereignty of interpretation, it would have been necessary to establish its own narrative long before the opposition’s campaign, which should have gone far beyond the topos of “overcoming Hartz IV”.
Second, the “actions as words” approach will not hold up over the long term because hope is a feeling directed toward the future. Scholz is able to convey that we will get through this winter to some extent. However, his speech does not contain how we can head for a future in which we no longer swing alone from crisis to crisis. One opinion poll of the Berlin think tank “Das Progressive Zentrum” provided an interesting finding this week: The term with which the Germans most closely associate the traffic light government is “Zeitwende”. Terms such as progress, freedom or respect were selected by less than five percent of those surveyed. This is characteristic of the chancellor’s communication because “turning point” is a diagnostic term. It names the initial situation, but does not describe the future. The traffic light’s former spirit of progress and modernization now seems like a story from the past.
Pictures, stories and perspective are missing
Scholz talks about the actions of the traffic lights, but does not tell their politics. Pictures and stories are missing. And the perspective. A narrative integrates short-term measures into a longer-term framework of meaning, it provides meaning and orientation. This can create a relationship between government and people. The plan is defined politically: Germany will become a climate-neutral industrial country, thereby protecting the basis of human life and freedom, strengthening its independence and security, enabling prosperity for children and grandchildren. A big promise, but one that is so attractive because there are credible answers to today’s problems with energy supply, price stability and general susceptibility to crises, which are noticeable everywhere.
Of course, the implementation of this plan does not have to be individualized, but the government has to integrate the people into this project. With Scholz, on the other hand, you all too often have the feeling that he speaks to people, but not with them. They would understand once the effects of his actions, which he has previously listed to them, become apparent. But at a time when not only the problems but also the political answers are complex, a chancellor cannot rely solely on the power to act. He also needs the power of words. And the power of a compelling narrative. “Chancellor of climate neutrality” could be the story – because today it takes more than just a crisis manager.
Johannes Hillje is a Policy Fellow at the Progressive Center