Breathless in Berlin: Germany's “Chancellor Debate” Is Facing an Insecure Future -- A Guest Post by Professor Christoph Bieber

Christoph Bieber is an Assistant Professor at the Institute for Political Science at the University of Giessen, Germany. His research is focusing on political communication, Internet and Politics, and Media Democracy.

Last Sunday, Germany conducted its third TV debate since installing “duel-style” discussions in 2002. Incumbent Angela Merkel and challenger Frank-Walter Steinmeier (who is also serving as Vice Chancellor in Mrs. Merkels cabinet) faced off in Berlin-Adlershof. Despite an audience of about 14 million viewers, this might have been the last of its kind. Although four leading television networks (two public, two commercial) televised the debate, ratings have dropped sharply from an astounding 21 million in 2005.

Each of the networks sent one of its anchors to the debate, leading to a “press panel”-format, considered outdated elsewhere in the world, and now appears outdated in Germany as well. The four-headed team of so-called “moderators” immediately started firing questions at the candidates, and the resulting high-speed Q&A-Session did all but benefit the debate. Even worse, the tone set by especially bold and biting questions let both politicians lower their shields – sometimes they seemed to prefer a private discussion without being interrupted or inappropriately addressed. Steinmeier managed to be more sovereign in expressing his dislike, while Merkel too often was caught haggling with the journalists for her right to debate.

The selection of issues discussed and their placement on the debate schedule were disputable at best. Following the over-paced opening sequence, the discussion of the economic crisis unsurprisingly dominated the first 35 minutes, including a detailed section on the future of “New Opel” and the regulation of manager’s earnings. The debate only glanced at energy policy, focusing on the discussion about the shutdown of nuclear power plants. Foreign policy came up next; in Germany that means military operations in Afghanistan. Between those issues, lengthy passages wasted time with political trivia (“What is the worst voter turnout for the Social Democrats after WWII, Mr. Steinmeier?”; “What was the average increase of the German economy during the last 10 years, Mrs. Merkel?”) or horserace-related questions on potential coalitions after a non-decisive vote. Of course, none of the candidates responded openly.

Yes, all of this may well fit into a debate, but Germany’s “Chancellor Duel” is legitimized because of extra-large viewership – and its dignity. This year, the format suffered from breathless browsing through the agenda and an irreverent struggle for questions and answers. Looking back, the debate class of 2009 might be remembered as a critical juncture in debate history: to save the format into the future, Germany has to switch to a series of debates led by a single moderator. Another lesson learned from this year’s damage might be the installation of an independent committee governing the debates – the role of the television networks as the sole sponsors of the debate has to be considered not as a mixed blessing, but as a curse.

Final point: television as the dominant factor within the German media landscape had secluded itself in the studio city at Berlin-Adlershof. Ridiculously, television networks had interdicted livestreaming the debate. If the reactions of the lively online scene would have been on the radar of German television gentry, starting points for an old media critique were obvious. The biggest portion of online coverage in blogs, livechats or on Twitter did not deal with statements or performance of Merkel and Steinmeier – the net bashed the four moderators.