When Friedrich Merz announced the demise of the FDP, it was a transparent political maneuver. The CDU chairman aimed to make it clear before the Rhineland-Palatinate state election that voters shouldn’t ‘waste’ their vote on the FDP if they desired a center-right policy. His calculation proved successful. The Free Democrats, much like in Baden-Württemberg, fell victim to the sharp focus on who would become the next state premier.
However, Merz’s political strategy doesn’t necessarily mean he was incorrect about the FDP’s actual state. The party’s recent electoral results are indeed dire. Across state and federal levels, they are consistently being voted out of parliaments. Barely scraping over the five-percent hurdle only occurred in Hesse and Bremen in 2023.
Now, even in its traditional «home states» in the southwest, the FDP finds itself merely an extra-parliamentary opposition. The inevitable leadership struggle, while understandable, does little to enhance the party’s current appeal. So, is this genuinely the end for the Free Democratic Party?
Tradition or Program Alone Don’t Win Elections
The FDP is rooted in the grand tradition of political liberalism, which significantly shaped parliamentarism in the 19th century. After World War II, the FDP sought to unify national and social liberal ideologies. Yet, no party is elected solely on its tradition, let alone just its political program.
What truly matters is how a party translates its principles into action. Crucially, it must convince voters that it possesses the capability to implement these actions. Even parties built on protest must inspire such a vision, otherwise, they remain peripheral or short-lived.
For most of the Federal Republic’s history, the FDP achieved this by fulfilling a distinct function within the party system: that of a kingmaker. Even during their heydays, major parties like the CDU/CSU and SPD relied on the FDP because voters, with one exception (Adenauer’s «pension election» in 1957), rarely granted them absolute majorities. The FDP thus held the balance of power, wielding influence far beyond its actual electoral share.
Grand Coalitions Always Posed an Existential Threat
The FDP’s monopoly on this kingmaker role ended with the entry of the Green Party into the political system, though the function itself persisted. It was often, though not exclusively, exercised as part of a «bloc,» typically with the CDU/CSU. Grand coalitions consistently presented an existential threat to the FDP. The Grand Coalition of 1966, for instance, was reportedly negotiated behind closed doors with the express aim of eliminating the then-third party.
However, the SPD later realized the greater advantage in preserving the FDP’s kingmaker role and drawing it into their orbit. This critical role has only recently been jeopardized as the CDU and SPD increasingly form coalitions at both federal and state levels. This trend stems from their inability to form governments with only one «smaller» party, coupled with their rejection of the AfD as a coalition partner. The weakening of the traditional major parties has effectively deprived the FDP of its historical foundation.
But Also an Opportunity
Nevertheless, there is another perspective: The Free Democrats have re-emerged in the political landscape as truly «free» Democrats, no longer constrained by a specific political bloc. Some of their politicians recognized these inherent opportunities early on. Guido Westerwelle, though ridiculed for his «18» campaign slogan, successfully led the FDP from near-parliamentary obscurity – after 16 years alongside the CDU – to its best-ever federal result, almost 15 percent.
It’s easy to overlook, but not long ago, Christian Lindner also guided his party to electoral results exceeding ten percent. Historically, the FDP achieved double-digit figures when it wasn’t pre-determined with whom they would govern, but there was an expectation that they would assume governmental responsibility. This pattern was evident in the first federal election, when Erich Mende promised to end the Adenauer era (a promise he ultimately didn’t keep), and towards the end of the social-liberal period.
Wanted: Responsible Liberals
This pattern also held true more recently with Westerwelle and Lindner. However, once they entered government, a complete collapse often ensued. For various reasons, their voters did not receive what they had anticipated: a responsible liberal influence on the government’s direction.
Why should the FDP not be able to offer this to voters again in the future? The demand for such a role still exists. While the Greens occasionally claim to be the new liberals, they largely remain a party of regulation. The AfD, though aspiring to economic liberalism, is primarily radical. Radicalism and responsible liberalism are inherently incompatible. Now, the FDP simply needs someone who can credibly and audibly convey this message, as being heard becomes increasingly challenging for them.
