Coalitions are seizing control of national governments across Europe with a singular intent: to keep national conservatives from gaining power. This trend seriously threatens the continent’s future.
Europe experiences a deep governance deficit. While administrations exist and carry out functions, true political and legislative leadership is missing. They manage rather than govern.
The continent faces critical long-term challenges—and I am setting aside the Ukraine conflict—that cannot be effectively addressed without reviving the skill of genuine governance. Achieving this requires governments that are ideologically cohesive and possess sufficient parliamentary strength to lead their countries decisively.
Unfortunately, this is not the current reality. Before embarking on a sobering overview of Europe’s capital cities, it’s important to highlight the complex policy dilemma underpinning the shift from governance to mere administration.
First, there are persistent budget-related issues:
- Supporters of enhanced military readiness push for increased defense budgets;
- Advocates of welfare expansion and elevated immigration face the rising costs of social programs;
- Those favoring tax cuts to stimulate economic growth are challenged to specify which spending areas to trim.
Given the sluggish economic growth, high unemployment, and already fragile fiscal conditions across many EU nations, balancing these budget priorities is tough. Yet, numerous governments have chosen to complicate their own crises further.
Second, the cordon sanitaire, Brandmauer, or firewall tactic, employed by many center-left—and some right-wing—parties is designed to exclude national-conservative factions. As these parties gain popularity and parliamentary seats, the anti-national-conservative coalitions find their internal cohesion increasingly strained.
The source of friction is straightforward: the classical Right versus Left divide. The Right advocates for lower taxes and greater private sector freedom; the Left pushes for expanded social benefits aimed at mitigating inequality.
Since many pivotal policy decisions revolve around public finances, such ideological clashes are inevitable. Consequently, governments across Europe now tend to prioritize preserving fragile coalitions merely to survive imminent votes, rather than advancing long-term agendas.
Within these ideologically diverse coalitions, routine political disagreements acquire existential significance—causing long-term socio-economic issues to remain unresolved. Among these, Europe’s slow march toward economic stagnation is perhaps the most overlooked.
These coalition hybrids exist in varied forms throughout Europe. Although their compositions differ, they share the characteristic of being assembled from leftover parliamentary factions after national conservatives are excluded.
Much like Victor Frankenstein in Mary Shelley’s novel, European coalition architects disregard the origins of their assembled parts. They remain unconcerned if their creation is unstable; what counts is ensuring it functions without any national conservative influence.
These coalitions do work—if one generously defines ‘work.’ France exemplifies how such a Frankenstein coalition operates only by narrowly focusing on surviving day-to-day challenges. Currently, Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu faces a precarious path as he attempts to steer clear of fiscal pitfalls.
Back in September, he pledged to reduce two public holidays to help trim the national deficit. This mild austerity aim seeks to avoid provoking protests that could topple his administration; since assuming office in September, he has already resigned once.
Although he returned to office, he was clearly shaken by early autumn street demonstrations that called for a ‘block everything’ strategy against spending cuts.
Lecornu is not France’s first prime minister heading a Frankenstein coalition. His predecessor, François Bayrou, also attempted similar holiday reductions to minimize ideological disputes.
Ironically, Bayrou was blocked by Marine LePen’s Rassemblement National (RN)—the very party he sought to marginalize but needed to retain power.
From a parliamentary perspective, a government that includes RN would enjoy greater stability. As the budget confrontation over Bayrou’s plans shows, such a government might pursue different fiscal priorities. However, the key advantage would be a sturdier leadership, capable of focusing beyond daily political squabbles.
While political elites in France continue clandestine efforts to keep RN sidelined, the country’s fiscal stalemate has led to a crucial credit downgrade. In September, Fitch warned Paris that without fiscal reform, the outlook is grim.
Before this downgrade, I cautioned about the severe ramifications if French leaders failed to act. Yet the warning went largely unheeded. The dominant anti-RN stance persists, along with its fallout. France’s government finances and economy deteriorate as ideological disputes hinder resolution of the budget deficit.
Meanwhile, RN profits from being excluded from power:
The RN’s continued ostracisation from mainstream politics has positioned it as a leading beneficiary of the rumbling malaise. By watching the crisis unfold from the sidelines, it has been able to pick up disgruntled voters.
Germany is embroiled in an equally intense political stalemate, driven by the same motive: constructing a Frankenstein coalition to exclude Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) at all costs.
To credit the German coalition’s resilience, the turmoil under Friedrich Merz is not the first governed by a no-AfD pact. Six months before Merz took office, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s three-party coalition approved a 2025 budget only after intense disputes. Within weeks, they reopened budget negotiations to settle lingering conflicts.
Merz assumed leadership in February, heading a coalition of Social Democrats and center-right CDU/CSU. His tenure has proven challenging:
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (CDU) confronts a critical moment on Thursday, November 27th, as the coalition committee seeks to resolve an escalating pension dispute
Earlier this year, Merz publicly stated that Germany can no longer sustain its welfare state model. The SPD coalition partner responded firmly: reforms demand tax hikes and protection of welfare beneficiaries.
Because closing Germany’s federal budget gap requires welfare state overhaul, as Merz indicated, the coalition is unlikely to achieve meaningful reform. This leaves Germany vulnerable, with challenges comparable to France: sluggish growth, weak job markets, poor capital investment, and persistent budget deficits.
These issues intensify as governments pieced together from fragmented parts are paralyzed by internal ideological conflicts.
Belgium has encountered similar gridlock and now faces a harsh austerity winter. Like France and Germany, Belgium’s coalition aims to exclude Vlaams Belang.
Austria’s new coalition formed in February seeking to keep the ‘far-right’ FPÖ at bay quickly encountered serious budget issues. The coalition swiftly introduced a temporary bank tax intended to raise revenue and postpone deeper budgetary disputes.
With Austria’s economy following Europe’s downward path, shrinking tax revenues accompanied by rising welfare demands will inevitably force budget priority decisions, even for its Frankenstein coalition.
The Frankenstein coalition model is expanding across Europe. Keep an eye on developments in the Netherlands today and Sweden after next year’s vote.
How long will those constructing these Frankenstein governments maintain exclusion of national conservatives—the most popular representatives of their people—before breaking down ideological barriers? At what point will Europe’s worsening economic crises compel political leaders to prioritize their citizens’ future over party politics?
Original article: europeanconservative.com
About the Author
