Green study praises traffic light government: “Performance is at least remarkable”

Why did the Greens lose so heavily in the federal election? Robert Habeck said the supply was "top," but demand "wasn't as strong as we had imagined." He later withdrew from active party work, as did his colleague Annalena Baerbock.

Left-wingers subsequently complained about the party's adoption of realist positions on migration policy, and also argued that the unique substantive focus on climate and environmental policy was not sufficiently emphasized. Others puzzled how the Left was able to record such strong gains in young, urban circles, thus profiting from the rejection of the AfD and the CDU at the expense of the Greens. In addition to these substantive considerations, the question now arises, several months after the election, about the structure and organization of the traffic light government, whose failure is also attributed to the Greens.

A study published Wednesday by the Heinrich Böll Foundation, which is close to the Greens, initially attests to a "steep learning curve" for the Greens in their work within the traffic light coalition. The document, compiled by political scientist Arne Jungjohann, is intended to help address the structural flaws of the governing party and thus prepare the Greens for the future.

The Greens lacked a clear center of power

But first, researcher Jungjohann begins with praise: The coalition agreement contained 50 percent more projects than that of the previous government. He also stated that the "performance" of the traffic light coalition was "at least remarkable." Jungjohann considers the government "very successful," particularly in dealing with the 2022 gas crisis and implementing the energy transition. Both were core green issues that fell under the purview of then-Economics Minister and Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck. The study concludes that the assessment of the traffic light coalition as a failed political project could possibly be revised in the medium to long term.

The 92-page study is based on interviews conducted by the researcher with 32 people from the Green Party's environment, including top political personnel and high-ranking staff, on condition of anonymity.

At the highest level of government, cooperation worked comparatively well, the study states. The three-way coalition between Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD), Finance Minister Christian Lindner (FDP), and Habeck was the coalition's "central axis of power," ensuring stability. However, its decisions were "repeatedly" adjusted by the parliamentary groups.

In his study, political scientist Jungjohann discusses in detail the organization of the traffic light government – ​​which in some cases established committees that its predecessors had already used for their own purposes. One example is the so-called "project clearing" process, which preceded the official legislative process and was intended to facilitate rapid, unbureaucratic coordination between the various departments. As the study describes, in reality, undesirable legislative proposals were delayed in this process or – as in the case of the Heating Act – information was leaked to the press, massively weakening trust within the coalition.

According to the study, there were also major structural deficits within the Green Party. There was no clear center of power and no clear distribution of power within the party, which led to ongoing conflicts and power struggles. Therefore, the study's author concludes: "A shared understanding of a clear distribution of roles would be an advantage" for a possible next Green participation in government.

Traffic light government was characterized by “dislike,” says Green study

Jungjohann identifies the fundamental differences between the governing parties as a fundamental problem, which were covered up at the beginning of the coalition by the talk of the “ progressive coalition ”.

He particularly highlights the differences between the Greens and the FDP, which prevented the traffic light coalition from becoming a "complementary coalition" "in which each coalition partner could demonstrate its own successes." The researcher attributes particular responsibility to the FDP: "It was their tactical interest to slow down the agenda, especially of the Greens, in order to gain a profile among a bourgeois-liberal clientele."

The "centrifugal forces" were particularly strong within the governing parties' parliamentary groups. The study describes the exchange between the governing parties as "conflict-laden" and "characterized by mistrust and antipathy." The study continues: "Especially at the parliamentary level, the divisions between the FDP and the Greens have always been deep."

The fact that these gaps could not be bridged could not have been remedied by better coalition management alone, as the study explains. Because, at its core, a government's success is primarily determined by working on a common project, which was not apparent until the end of the traffic light coalition's term in office.