By: Dr Andreja Valič Zver
Former world chess champion and grandmaster Garry Kasparov snapped at the NATO Secretary General with the words, “Do something!”, after the latter expressed solidarity with German Chancellor Merz following a hybrid attack on Leipzig Airport. Kasparov is no ordinary figure. He is a highly perceptive and respected political analyst who fled Putin’s regime and settled in the West. Kasparov has expressed similarly sharp criticism of what he sees as the timid policies pursued by the German chancellor. Following the CDU’s electoral debacle in the German state of Saxony-Anhalt, Merz, apparently in shock, recently made the trivialising comparison of remigration to ethnic cleansing.
It should be noted that the concept of remigration has gained legitimacy not only in European politics but also in national political arenas. Thus, whether intentionally or not, the German chancellor gave additional momentum to the AfD, which won a sweeping victory in the aforementioned state election and is also performing well elsewhere. In fact, they are becoming part of the mainstream of German politics, while previously dominant forces are being pushed to the margins. This seems understandable if we recall the fifteen-year period of Merkel’s and Merz’s leadership, during which they uncritically adopted left-wing political terms, ideas, and concepts. The public, however, did not embrace them.
Merz has effectively distorted the concept of remigration, which is generally understood as the return of illegal migrants, not of all other migrants, let alone their expulsion on ethnic grounds. Similar political misuse has also affected the terms genocide and populism. While the former has a clearly defined meaning within international law, the latter lacks both a theoretical and legal definition. It carries significant political weight and is therefore used extensively, even though most users do not fully understand it.
In short, populism is a relatively new concept. It emerged in modern politics about a century and a half ago, although its roots can be traced back to the ancient Greeks and Romans. It is an extremely diverse political phenomenon, a real “magpie’s nest.” It does not belong to any of the classical ideologies. We are closer to the truth if we say that it borrows a little from here and a little from there. It has no common substance or meaning, though certain characteristic forms, methods of behaviour, or a typical political approach could be identified. The broadest definition of the term is that it involves “offering political ideas and policies that the people (populus) expect.”
Yet, ironically, leftists have appropriated this concept as well and assigned it their own narrative, just as they have done with the term genocide, which they invoke whenever it suits them.
The worst part is that this perception has been uncritically accepted even by leading politicians on the political right, including those from the governing European party. Hardly a speech passed without attacks on so-called populists, often meaning Orbán, Trump, or, in Slovenia, Janša. Yet if one compares the governments of Golob and Janša, significant differences become apparent. Golob governed with great fanfare, made attractive but unrealistic promises, and created a massive hole in the state budget. Janša, on the other hand, publicly stated that he wanted his term in office to be pragmatic and uneventful. It is difficult to describe the latter as populism.
Looking around and examining history, one can find many left-wing populists in addition to Golob. Among them are Castro, Perón, and Lenin. Even Mussolini and Hitler initially emerged from socialist backgrounds and were, more or less, far-left populists. Today, the icon of left-wing populism is Spanish Prime Minister Sánchez.
Drawing on Germany’s historical experience, Merz could have known and understood that people in his country are afraid. Fear is the driving force behind extreme politics. Instead of reassuring people and giving them a sense of security, Merz has chosen a rhetoric that further worsens the atmosphere in the country. And not only in Germany, but also in other countries to which he is signalling reduced budgets and a diminished German donor role. Rather than truly taking the bull by the horns, addressing real problems, and ensuring the effective remigration of illegal immigrants, his daily “blah, blah, blah,” to borrow Kasparov’s phrase, is a shot in the dark. That is why Germany should concern us, because, as the old saying goes, “when Germany sneezes, the rest of Europe catches a cold.”