The European Union is facing significant challenges on many fronts: a pandemic that has severely hit Europe with no end in sight; stalling integration and even disintegration of the union; internal disputes about the rule of law and democratic standards; and an enduring disagreement about how to deal with mass immigration. In the absence of a policy solution, member states are eager for a natural leader to emerge, to guide the bloc out of crisis. One such leader could be Germany, which has, however, taken a more restrained approach to leadership under outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel. It may well be the best course of action to continue much the same. 

Germany is the most populated country in Europe and one of the EU’s main economic powerhouses. This makes it a natural contender for a leading role in Europe. While the country has been tacitly guiding the bloc, many argue that Germany should take a more proactive role in European affairs. For example, professor of international economics at Fulda University of Applied Sciences, Rainer Hillebrand, argues that “in Europe, calls for German leadership have emerged in the context of the Ukraine conflict, the refugee and especially the Eurozone crises.” 

The need for leadership in times of political upheaval can be traced back to Mancur Olson’s collective action problem. This problem occurs when no actor in a large group wishes to take on the commitment of providing a public good. Olson, a renowned political economist, has argued that large groups may face such collective action problems when making joint decisions. The EU is no exception. In his book After Hegemony, Princeton professor emeritus of International Affairs Robert Keohane points to effective leadership as being one tool of facilitating cooperation between nations. While Keohane speaks of hegemonic leadership, one can infer from him and Olson that any member state willing to invest time and resources in problem-solving and lead the implementation of a solution could help overcome the collective action problem in the EU. 

It seems that in times of crisis, the EU requires proactive leadership to solve its problems. In policy circles the view of Merkel has become more critical and many think that her popularity came at the price of inaction on many important issues. Mujtaba Rahman, an analyst at the political risk consultancy Eurasia Group, argues that Merkel let Europe’s biggest challenges get out of hand and that “the next chancellor won’t have the luxury of ignoring the EU’s most heated debates.” This means that the new German chancellor will have to face issues that may require a more forceful positioning of Germany within the EU. Overall it appears that Europe needs to find a new way forward to overcome its internal and external challenges. German leadership could be it.

Germany, however, is unlikely to be able to provide such proactive leadership. It is true that Germany retains large agenda-setting power within the EU. Political scientist Peter Katzenstein, for example, argues that “Germany exercises power not so much strategically as by its sheer might.” However, Germany tries to avoid an overt leadership position in Europe. Instead, German power manifests itself in dedicated consensus-building efforts within the framework of the EU. Germany seeks to avoid using deliberate power. This can largely be traced back to the origins of the European Communities. Martin Dedman, a visiting Research Scholar at the McBride Center for International Business, argues that the project of the Monetary Union and the enlargement of the Common Market was triggered by French concerns over the growing ties between West Germany and Eastern Europe in the 1970s and 1990s. Kenneth Dyson, professor of politics at Cardiff University, continues that Germany was all too aware of these concerns held by the West and therefore then-Chancellor Helmut Kohl “was keen to reassure his EC neighbours that he would not be seduced to accept an offer of German unification at the price of neutrality.” However, instead of leading overtly, Kohl “came to define his role [in creating the EMU] as one of inspiration: of mobilising and galvanising support for it.” 

Political scientists Simon Bulmer and William Paterson describe Germany as a “gentle giant” in the EU. Within the framework that I have put forward this means that while the EU may require more proactive leadership, Germany is unlikely to provide it. As early as 2013, the Economist, under the title “The Reluctant Hegemon,” argued that Germany had to step up and lead in the face of the euro-crisis. However, even when many countries recognised the need for leadership, with regard to austerity measures “southern European politicians [said] Germany is selfishly wielding its clout to impose austerity policies that will wreck their part of Europe in order to protect German taxpayers.” It seems quite clear that historically there has been little appetite for Germany to wield significant power in Europe. This has not changed. 

Even today, Germany is perceived by many to wield sufficient power in the world and there seems to be little interest in a more proactive role of Germany in European affairs. The Pew Research Centre found that “among the European Union member states surveyed, many think Germany has about the right amount of influence in the EU.” It seems that especially in southern Europe, German influence is viewed negatively – no doubt an effect of the austerity measures imposed on these states as a response to the eurozone crisis. 

However, even northern European countries seem content with the amount of influence Germany currently has in Europe. A median of only 4% of respondents in Greece, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden believe that Germany currently has too little influence over European affairs. The same report reveals that support for Merkel as German chancellor is at 77%. A new chancellor, most likely Olaf Scholz, would not have this advantage and his actions on a European stage are likely to be viewed, at least at first, more suspiciously. All this suggests that Germany must tread carefully if it wishes to extend its influence over European policy. 

In the post-war period, Germany has faced the challenge of being considered by many a natural leader in Europe due to its economic might and population size, while being prohibited from exercising this power for historical reasons. When in 1948 German officials were told that a customs union in Europe could include Western Germany, they were eager to grasp the opportunity at rehabilitation. To a certain extent, Germany still feels this responsibility today and wishes to preserve the existing balance of power in Europe. In the face of disapproval of fellow member states, it seems unlikely that Germany would expand its leadership role.

The EU faces many issues and strong leadership could be one way of overcoming its collective action problem. Many turn to Germany to fulfill its natural leadership role and guide the EU out of crisis. However, many Europeans do not agree. For both historical and contemporary reasons, Germany is seen as having sufficient power and a more open German leadership remains contested. It is likely that Germany will carefully select the issues it chooses to foreground on a European stage and continue to work through consensus-building in order to achieve its objectives. Germany may have a new government and a new chancellor, but its approach may be just more of the old strategy.