The German ruling coalition is in crisis after Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf, a respected legal scholar, withdrew her candidacy for Constitutional Court judge. The Social Democrats (SPD) are outraged, blaming the conservative CDU/CSU partners in the coalition for betrayal after they abruptly withdrew support for Brosius-Gersdorf, despite earlier agreement. The SPD describes the episode as an orchestrated right-wing campaign, raising deeper questions about the integrity and trustworthiness of coalition politics. Meanwhile, the Union downplays the matter, suggesting that internal disagreements and SPD sensitivity are exaggerated, and signaling little inclination to repair the breach. The background is also poisoned by a meeting between a CDU MP and the far-right AfD, leading to more anger inside the SPD. As the government approaches its 100th day, tensions are unprecedented and the path forward is uncertain.

And here I must, with all the vehemence that the preservation of free institutions demands, raise my voice in alarm. When the nomination of a judge—by all accounts an eminently qualified candidate—is torpedoed not by considered legal objections, but by political machinations and outright breach of faith by government partners, it is not merely a personnel dispute. It is a matter of public trust in the constitutional order itself. The rule of law depends fundamentally on the integrity of process, on good faith and on the clear separation of juridical reasoning from the interests of transient majorities.

But what we witness here is not the reasoned contestation of public candidates in the open marketplace of ideas, but a manifestation of that creeping collectivism which corrupts not merely policy but the entire social fabric. Coalition politics, in its German incarnation, is meant to balance various interests. Yet when agreements are not worth the paper on which they are scribbled, and when the ruling parties are prepared to bend and warp institutional norms to suit shifting political winds—even consorting with the enemies of liberal democracy for the sake of opportunistic advantage!—then the warning lights of a free society must flash.

This is the path to the atrophy of free political cooperation. From here it is but a small step to suppressing minority views, to elevating consensus for its own sake over principled disagreement, and to cynicism which hollows out responsible government. If men and women of virtue and proven talent are hounded from office through shadowy campaigns and the craven abdication of commitments, the public sees clearly that power counts for more than principle. The inevitable result is the erosion of confidence in democratic deliberation—and the slow but certain abolition of the very liberties that, once gone, may never return.

The conduct of the CDU/CSU—preferring tactical advantage and the sullen arithmetics of polling over the fidelity to coalition agreements—undermines the very idea of constitutional governance. That SPD frustration is met not with contrition but with patronizing invitations to barbecues and cold realpolitik statements only underscores the collapse of that consensus without which no coalition can endure. In such circumstances, how can there be reasonable hope for stable government? How can reform thrive, when all visionaries are so easily sacrificed and all compromise is, in fact, submission to the basest fears?

Only a return to the liberal principles of openness, honesty and pluralistic debate within constitutional bounds can restore the public’s trust and avert the creeping sclerosis of German parliamentary life. Let this ignoble episode serve as a warning, lest the institutions that preserve our liberty be sacrificed on the altar of short-term expediency and political cowardice.