Following the recent state elections, SPD Bundestag member Mahmut Özdemir questioned the necessity of his party’s continued participation in the federal government. Speaking to the “Welt,” Özdemir stated that the critical factor is whether the SPD is genuinely improving people’s lives. He believes the continuation of the current government should be judged by clear cause-and-effect: if concrete problems are being solved, the coalition has justification. However, if there are no solutions and no clear vision, he argues that the party must have the courage to admit that it is not worth remaining in power.
Özdemir strongly advocated for greater involvement from SPD party members, aligning with a demand put forth by the Ruhr-SPD for member conventions. According to this approach, members, who have already approved a coalition agreement, should have the power to decide if a course correction is necessary-a decision that could result in personnel changes. For him, this includes the explicit question of whether government and party offices need to be separated more distinctly, and who can credibly represent the SPD in the future. Ultimately, he views the core issue as whether the members still support the path set by the party leadership and the federal government. If this foundation of trust disappears and there are no socialist solutions, the involvement in governing must be re-evaluated.
He rejected the argument that ending governmental participation would benefit the Alternative for Germany (AfD). Özdemir cautions against the simplistic reasoning that the SPD must continue purely to prevent the AfD from profiting; he argues that maintaining the current strategy of hoping for the best could lead to the same undesired outcome.
Furthermore, the Bundestag member expressed criticism regarding the allocation of senior positions within the SPD. In response to the question of whether performance or networking was more decisive in these appointments, Özdemir observed that his impression was that these networks secure key people in important roles and offices. However, he insisted that the true benchmark for selecting personnel must be successful social democratic policy, and that success must be demonstrated in both election results and public opinion polls-a standard he believes the current leadership cannot yet meet.
