A country divided: Five key takeaways from the German election
Germany held an election this past Sunday after the previous Scholz government collapsed. The election provided several key takeaways worth examining in order to look at the future dynamics of German politics.
Firstly, the likely next Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has one of the weakest mandates, with his Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (CDU) having their second-worst performance since 1949. Merz’s CDU and the Bavarian Christlich-Soziale Union (CSU) performed worse than every other election since the Second World War, except for the previous election. In that election, the union parties lost to incumbent Olaf Scholz. Now, Merz can expect to be Chancellor with a smaller percentage of votes than any previous CDU Chancellor. This follows polling showing that only 43% of Germans are confident in Merz as Chancellor.
This is due to the increasingly fractured German political spectrum. In the first West German election after World War II, nine parties were elected to the German Bundestag (the CDU and CSU are counted as one for our purposes, due to them running together). By 1961, this was down to three: the CDU/CSU, the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD), and the Freie Demokratische Partei (FDP). This dynamic remained until 1983 when the German Greens entered parliament. Following the collapse of the East German regime, the Partei des Demokratischen Sozialismus (PDS) would join, later becoming Die Linke. Finally, after the Syrian Refugee Crisis and the 2015-16 Cologne New Year’s attacks made the debate surrounding migration increasingly contentious, the Alternative für Deutschland (AFD) would enter parliament in 2017. Whereas the CDU essentially held a monopoly on right-wing politics, now they have to compete with the AFD, which has capitalised off a polarised political climate that undermines the party that is the face of stability.
Secondly, the divide between East and West remains, with much of East Germany voting for the AFD in the constituency votes. In Germany, seats are divided between constituency seats, similar to the British parliamentary system, and proportionally distributed seats, similar to the Netherlands. However, unlike the Netherlands, to get any of the proportional seats, parties must meet a threshold of 5% in the vote share. Alternatively, if they win three constituency seats, they are also eligible. The AFD won a sea of direct mandates throughout the East, winning just two in the West. East Germany was historically much poorer, leading to more substantial support for populist parties in the region. It was a stronghold for Die Linke and the PDS in the past, but in recent years, it has shifted to the AFD. Die Linke still maintains a strong position there; however, with the party turning to a more progressive and cosmopolitan position, it has made breakthroughs in the West. Parties like the Greens and FDP comparatively have little presence in the East but some presence in the West.
Thirdly, younger voters are drifting to the fringes. Die Linke was the most popular party among 18-29 year olds, thanks largely to utilising social media and the charisma of one of the party’s leaders in the Bundestag, Heidi Reichinnek. Meanwhile, the AFD came in second and won 30-44 year olds. This comes as debates surrounding migration, crime, and a soaring cost of living have ignited anger across the political spectrum.
Fourthly, while the AFD remains controversial, public opinion has shifted against migration. Merz’s CDU has taken a tougher line on migration, a far cry from the days of the CDU’s former leader, Angela Merkel, welcoming millions of Syrian refugees to the country. However the consensus on migration has shifted, as after the Cologne attacks, even Merkel took a harder line on irregular migration, as did Scholz and the SPD since coming to power in 2021. However, both parties are seen by many as responsible for the problem. Still, 64% of voters supported Merz’s stronger line against migration.
Finally, regarding Ukraine, Germany will remain committed to supporting Ukraine. This comes as United States Vice President J.D Vance and Elon Musk both advocated for the AFD, which supports lifting sanctions and resuming gas imports from Russia. As the U.S. commitment to Ukraine wavers, supporters of Ukraine can breathe a sigh of relief as Merz repeated that Germany must remain committed. Additionally, the previous Scholz government was accused by many of not being supportive enough and of being hesitant to take steps such as supporting the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine. Merz’s CDU was their most prominent domestic critic in this regard. Now, the CDU can push German support for Ukraine further, which is necessary as the U.S. begins to look away.
Israel sends tanks to the West Bank for the first time in 20 years. Here’s why that’s significant
Israel recently deployed troops to the West Bank amidst the Gaza ceasefire. Israel has occupied the West Bank since its victory in the Six-Day War in 1967. In the 1990s, Israel began a peace process in what is called the Oslo Accords, which set up the Palestinian Authority, which has governed the West Bank since and governed Gaza until Hamas’ electoral victory and subsequent consolidation of power in 2006-07.
Since then, Israel has regularly made incursions into the West Bank to target alleged militants. Additionally, Israeli citizens have built homes in towns called “settlements” within the West Bank. The topic of settlements has been particularly contentious, with them frequently pointed to as an example of Israel displacing Palestinians. However, since Hamas’ attack on October 7, 2023, tensions have escalated, with Israel launching airstrikes into the West Bank.
In August of last year, Israel sent armoured vehicles to the cities of Jenin and Tulkarem, displacing Palestinians living there. In January, Israel launched an even more aggressive operation called “Operation Iron Wall”, which targeted the Jenin refugee camp. Now, Israel has sent tanks and troops and announced that those removed from the refugee camp will not be allowed to return.
This escalation coincides with the re-election of President Donald Trump, who has taken an even stronger pro-Israeli position than his predecessor, Joe Biden. Notably, there were protests across the world last year against Israel’s actions in Gaza, with many in the U.S. accusing the Biden administration of being complicit. Now, with Trump in power, the U.S. has floated taking over Gaza itself and moving Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank altogether. This plan was harshly condemned by various nations in the region, including U.S. allies and countries that recognise Israel, such as Jordan, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates, among others.
Additionally, with Trump, hardliners in the Netanyahu cabinet, such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, have advocated annexing Gaza and the West Bank as well, saying that security in the West Bank was now a “war goal” back in January.
Israel’s political class has drifted further and further to the right over the last three decades. Notably, 30 years ago, then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated over negotiating with the Palestinians for a state by a far-right Israeli who opposed the Oslo Accords, a series of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, entirely. The opposition leader at the time, Benjamin Netanyahu, was elected the following year, promising a more hardline approach to negotiation. He lost power in 1999 before returning to power in 2009, losing it again briefly in 2021 and then regaining it in 2022, which he has held since. Netanyahu himself is controversial, being under investigation for corruption, and many believing his actions in Gaza are a distraction from his own corruption scandals.
The timing of this is no coincidence either, as Netanyahu has a very close relationship with Trump, dating back to his time in the U.S. in the 1980s when he befriended Trump’s father, Fred Trump. During Trump’s first term, the U.S. would recognise Jerusalem as the official capital of Israel, something that was taboo for years due to the religious significance of the city for various faiths, including the primarily Muslim Palestinians. Trump also spearheaded the Abraham Accords, allowing Israel to gain recognition from other regional states, including Morocco, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain.
Trump’s victory was met with joy in Israel, as polls before the U.S. election showed 68% of Israelis preferring Trump over his opponent, Kamala Harris. Now Israel feels it has immunity as its ally’s President and their Prime Minister share a close relationship. Also, as both countries drift to the political right, the already close relationship grows closer. Last year, following the ICC issuing arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, Republican Senator Tom Cotton threatened to invoke the Hague Invasion Act if Netanyahu or Gallant were put on trial. This act gives the U.S. government the authority to free any American citizen on trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC), including through an invasion of the Hague, where the ICC is located.
As Israel escalates in the West Bank, it is unlikely that Washington will do anything to hamper Israel as the two countries’ leadership is closer than ever.
Ukraine and U.S. agree to minerals deal
The United States and Ukraine have agreed to a deal over selling Ukrainian minerals to the U.S. as part of Kyiv’s efforts to woo the new administration in Washington. Last week, Washington demanded access to Ukrainian mineral revenue, leading to a spat between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
The current deal is reported to be more in Ukraine’s favour, with a smaller cut for the U.S. Still, this continues the Trump Presidency’s tactic of aggressive diplomatic pressure to pursue its goals. The U.S. no longer sees other countries, Ukraine included, as allies but potential business partners. Thus, it has taken a more aggressive stance, including tariff brinkmanship and threats of invasion, and it is now undermining previous allies in negotiations.
This comes after the U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in the first round of negotiations. Trump has stated openly that he wants to end the war and accused Zelensky himself of being a dictator despite Zelensky being democratically elected. Additionally, he has accused Ukraine of starting the war, further damaging relations with Kyiv. However, it is clear that Kyiv still views the U.S.’ support as crucial as it is now willing to negotiate with Trump on what was previously a non-starter.
Notably, however, the deal lacks security guarantees by the U.S. for Ukraine. The deal is still militarily significant for Ukraine, with Trump saying it gives Ukraine the “right” to fight on. The agreement comes after the U.S. unilaterally opened negotiations with the Russians, and many feared the Americans would force Ukraine to concede territory.
Zelensky and Ukraine remain in a difficult position as they must keep Trump and the U.S. happy. The U.S. currently has shown complete disregard for its traditional alliances, leaving the European Union on edge as it faces an increasingly aggressive Russia. Previously relying on a united front between the U.S. and the EU, Ukraine must find a way to secure its own existence. Since its independence, until 2014, Russia and the EU have competed for influence in Ukraine, with great divides within Ukraine as to whether it should remain tied to Russia or embrace a liberal democratic path offered by the EU.
Since 2014, it seems the Ukrainian people have chosen the liberal democratic path. This was because of the Maidan Revolution when the Ukrainian people overthrew their Russian-aligned president, Viktor Yanukovych. This provoked condemnation from Russia, who accused the revolution of being a U.S.-backed coup before invading and annexing the Crimean peninsula, one of the most Russophilic parts of the country and also a key strategic port for the Russian state.
However, with its largest guarantor of security since 2014, the U.S., undercutting them in negotiations and blackmailing them for resources, the country must tread carefully if it wishes to save the legacy of Maidan.
Rwanda sanctions will undermine push for Congo peace talks, proscribed minister says
The United Kingdom recently announced it is suspending foreign aid to Rwanda due to its support for the March 23 Movement (M23), in the conflict in the Kivu region in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). M23 is a Tutsi rebel group currently being investigated by the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) chief prosecutor.
The conflict between the DRC and Rwanda dates back to the 1990s when Rwanda’s Hutu population committed genocide against the minority Tutsi before fleeing to the DRC (then called Zaire) and taking refuge there along with over a million other Hutu refugees.
Rwanda backed a rebellion to overthrow the then government of Zaire, which was successful, but the new leader would then turn on Rwanda, sparking Rwanda and Uganda to begin supporting rebels in the Second Congo War, a war so deadly it was nicknamed “Africa’s World War.”
One group Rwanda backed was M23, which resurged in 2021 and has taken over large territories in the Congo. The Congolese government often collaborates with the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a Hutu rebel group which Rwanda considers terrorists.
In the past, Rwanda denied support to the M23 but has recently become more defensive, arguing that the DRC poses a security threat to Rwanda and that its actions come out of a necessity to protect itself. With the conflict escalating since January, the Rwandan government has come under increased scrutiny, and the UK has announced it will no longer provide foreign aid. Despite this, the UK has not supported either side and calls for a diplomatic solution. However, because of limiting aid, Rwanda has accused them of picking a side in the conflict. This further damages Rwanda, a close ally of the West and a proposed destination for migrants awaiting their asylum application by the previous Conservative UK government. This follows the United States sanctioning certain Rwandan officials as well.
M23 claims it is bringing order to a failed state and fighting for the rights of the Tutsi minority. However, even today, we can see the scars of the 1994 genocide as the ethnic divides remain far from healed. While Rwanda officially bans ethnic politics, many accuse it of suppressing the Hutu majority and of using the genocide as an excuse to enshrine the Tutsi minority dominance of Rwandan political institutions.
The Kivu region has remained largely lawless since the end of the Second Congo War in 2003 and has seen sporadic violence until the conflict reignited in 2021 and escalated this year. It remains a battleground for influence and a security risk, with other countries like Burundi and Uganda interfering to fight other rebel groups they view as a threat, as well as confronting M23. This region of Africa can expect a tumultuous several years as various nations fight to control multiple resources and guarantee their own security.
Five takeaways from Canada’s Liberal leadership debates
Canada’s incumbent Liberal Party recently had leadership debates where hopeful future leaders debated key issues. Here are five key takeaways and their historical and political context.
Firstly, how Canada should respond to President Donald Trump of the United States has dominated the debate. He has been called an existential threat and given the Liberals, who had been trailing the Conservative opposition for years now, a new surge of energy and reignited hopes of a Liberal victory in the following Canadian election. This comes as he threatened a 25% tariff and joked about Canada becoming the 51st state of the U.S. This led to a surge in Canadian nationalism and anti-American feelings in Canadian society.
Former finance minister Chrystia Freeland pointed to her record as a minister during Trump’s first term and claims to be a tough negotiator. Meanwhile, Mark Carney countered by saying this is not the same Trump as before. He argued that Trump wanted not just Canadian markets but the country itself. Karina Gould said the government should help businesses become less dependent on the U.S. At the same time, Frank Baylis advocated improving relations further with other Anglosphere countries like the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand.
Secondly, the Canadian economy was the next biggest question. Carney came up with a plan to balance the budget; Freeland defended her record by saying the finances of the country are in good order, Baylis said the country must improve its productivity, while Gould said balancing the budget was not possible without significant cuts, which she did not support.
Many Canadians are unhappy with the economy as the cost of living has skyrocketed since the COVID-19 pandemic, with much of the blame going to incumbent Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Thirdly, all the candidates rallied against Conservative leader Pierre Pollievre, known for his right-wing populist style of politics and compared him to Trump, capitalising off a surge of anti-Trump sentiment in the country. Poilievre and the Conservatives have had to shift from their message of attacking the incumbent Prime Minister to a more nationalistic “Canada First” campaign.
Fourthly, another area of consensus was on Ukraine, where all four pledged to continue supporting and hitting the 2% NATO obligation. However, the timeline varies, with Freeland advocating 2027 and Carney and Baylis saying their plan would get Canada there by 2030. Freeland also advocated closer cooperation with European partners in NATO instead of the U.S.
This comes as Trump blindsided allies by starting negotiations for a deal regarding the war in Ukraine, without Ukraine or other NATO allies present. Canada, like the EU and UK, is in a panic as the U.S.’ foreign policy becomes more unpredictable and self-interested, even at the expense of long-standing alliances.
Finally, the Carbon Tax remains controversial. Freeland and Carney both promised to ditch the tax, as it had become incredibly unpopular and divisive, while Gould and Baylis pledged to keep it, saying fighting climate change comes with the price.
The carbon tax has been a favourite attack by the Conservative opposition and remains an issue that divides the Liberals, as concerns about the cost of living have dominated the discussion at the expense of concerns about climate change.
The policy also remains a symbol of the Trudeau premiership, which many Canadians want to move past, and all leadership candidates seem keen to distance themselves from.
Tesla sales crash 45% in Europe as rivals surge, Musk’s politics spark backlash
Tesla founder Elon Musk is the wealthiest man in the world. He is also a significant figure in world politics, leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in the recent administration of United States President Donald Trump. This comes after Musk spent more than a quarter of a million dollars to help get Trump elected. Musk frequently appeared at rallies, has been spotted often at Mar-a-Lago since Trump’s election, and has been consistently in the spotlight as part of the administration’s efforts to curtail government spending.
Musk has also ventured into foreign politics, openly backing the Alternative für Deutschland (AFD) party in the recent German election. He hosted a Twitter space with its lead candidate, Alice Weidel, and has frequently promoted far-right talking points on immigration and crime.
He has also publicly advocated for the release of Tommy Robinson, a far-right activist in the United Kingdom, in prison for a contempt of court charge; and supported far-right parties like Reform UK in Great Britain and Vox in Spain.
At the centre of this is X, formerly known as Twitter, which Musk took over in 2022, firing most of the staff and changing the rules regarding hate speech and terms of service violations on the platform. Musk’s leadership of X has been controversial, with many companies and organisations leaving X for other platforms due to increased hate speech, which Musk defends as part of protecting “free speech.”
Musk has used X to promote his own views, far-right talking points, and platform right-wing politicians, including hosting the launch of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ Presidential campaign. Musk initially supported DeSantis but switched to supporting Trump when it became clear Trump was the nominee again in 2024.
However, while Musk’s political influence comes from his vast economic wealth, in addition to Tesla and X, he also owns the companies: SpaceX, Neuralink, the Boring Company, and xAI. Of all these companies, Tesla is the most valuable, being worth $770.2 billion as of August 2023. Now, Musk’s role in politics has begun to affect his bottom line, with his most valuable company, Tesla, taking a massive hit in sales, especially in Europe. In the last month, sales plunged 45% in Europe, with many Europeans upset at Musk’s support for the European far right and his association with the Trump administration as it has undermined relations with Europe through his tariff threats on the EU and not involving EU allies or Ukraine in negotiations with Russia over the Russo-Ukrainian war.
The company also registered fewer vehicles than China’s BYD Co. for the first time ever in the UK. Tesla saw an 8% drop in sales in a market that has grown 42%. Electric vehicles are increasingly in demand, especially as combating climate change and energy transition become crucial goals for the international community. This backlash is targeted explicitly at Tesla due to its affiliation with Musk as the EV market at large continues to grow. A YouGov poll in the UK and Germany in mid-January 2025 showed that 71% of Brits and 71% of Germans disapproved of Musk.
Many have compared Musk to the monopolists of the Gilded Age like J.P. Morgan and Andrew Carnegie. Others have compared him to various oligarchs who had tremendous influence under the presidency of Boris Yeltsin. However, while they were all incredibly influential in politics, Musk has taken a more public role, with many even arguing he is the “real” president and accusing Trump of being his puppet.
This public image of Musk, the political actor, has now come at the expense of Musk, the businessman and his financial interests.
Leave a Reply