(de-news.net) – Opposition is growing towards a potential Berlin governing coalition involving the Left Party. SPD figures Dietmar Woidke and Wolfgang Thierse, along with politicians from the CDU/CSU and the Greens, raise concerns about the Left’s positions on policing, antisemitism, organized crime, and housing socialization. Left politician Gregor Gysi disputes some of the criticism, while Green leaders demand clearer action against antisemitism. The debate also extends to constitutional questions over housing, with legal scholar Ulrich Battis arguing that a policy of socialization would not resolve Berlin’s shortage of living spaces.
The possibility of the Left Party joining Berlin’s state government has been rejected by Brandenburg Minister-President Woidke, who has advised his party’s Berlin organization to steer clear of a coalition with the Left in its current form. Woidke criticized what he described as the party’s promotion of policies that would weaken the police and judiciary, while also alleging that parts of the Berlin Left had ties to criminal-clan environments and held antisemitic views. In his view, those positions and relationships would create serious risks for security in the German capital and raise questions about whether the party was prepared to take responsibility for governing.
Woidke also criticized the Left’s proposals to socialize large housing corporations, arguing that such measures could impede the construction of new homes and damage the local economy. In a similar vein, he questioned whether cooperation with the Left would be practical as Berlin seeks to attract investment from the defense sector, an issue that would put questions of economic policy and security policy in direct proximity. Despite having led a Social Democratic-Left coalition in Brandenburg from 2013 to 2019, Woidke said his opposition to a comparable arrangement in Berlin had not changed. He emphasized that while the Brandenburg Left had proved to be a dependable governing partner, he viewed it as politically very different from its Berlin counterpart.
At the same time, Woidke rejected calls from Hessian Minister-President Boris Rhein of the Christian Democratic Union, or CDU, and Bavarian Minister-President Markus Söder of the Christian Social Union, or CSU, to reduce federal financial transfers to Berlin. He pointed to the constitutional guarantee underlying Germany’s fiscal equalization system, arguing that the transfers were part of an established framework rather than simply a discretionary political decision. On his own political future, Woidke said he had postponed consideration of the question because he was not yet halfway through the current legislative term. Any eventual decision, he said, would be made in consultation with his wife and his party. Woidke is Germany’s longest-serving state premier, having led Brandenburg since 2013.
Woidke also warned against what he described as a growing anti-eastern sentiment in western states following AfD victories in Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. He said the rise of the far right represented a national challenge and argued that it was fundamentally incorrect to regard support for the Alternative for Germany, or AfD, as primarily an eastern German phenomenon. Instead, he urged the political center to examine why so many voters were moving toward parties that, in his assessment, offered no answers to the problems confronting them.
SPD critics challenge Left’s governing record and housing agenda
Thierse, a former president of the Bundestag, likewise cautioned his party against entering a coalition with the Left under its current leadership. Thierse acknowledged that the Left’s candidate for Berlin’s governing mayor was personally likable, but argued that personal appeal alone was not a sufficient reason for the city to elect her. He criticized what he described as the party’s alleged connections to clan milieus and its demands to weaken police and constitutional-protection institutions. In his view, it would be reckless to transfer governing power in the German capital to a party that, he said, had not adequately confronted antisemitism within its own ranks.
Thierse also challenged the Left’s approach to housing. Drawing on his personal experience of living in East Germany, he argued that nationalization and state management of housing had not eliminated shortages or prevented rents from rising. That experience informed his opposition to socializing large housing corporations as a proposed answer to Berlin’s housing crisis. He therefore questioned whether transferring ownership and management to the state would address the underlying shortage of available housing.
Within the CDU/CSU, Federal Economics Minister Katherina Reiche (CDU) repeated warnings about the prospect of a Left-led government in Berlin. She argued that Berlin and Germany’s reputation as destinations for investment could be placed at risk by a party that combined support for expropriation with what she described as overt antisemitism. Felix Banaszak, co-chair of the Green Party, similarly called on the Left to clarify its position on Israel’s right to exist, among other issues. He said the Greens would not enter a coalition with the Left at any cost, underscoring the significance of the dispute over the party’s positions on Israel and antisemitism.
Left Party politician Gregor Gysi, while acknowledging that some members of his own party had gone too far in their criticism of Israel, accused other parties represented in the Bundestag of using allegations of antisemitism for political purposes. His comments reflected a broader dispute over how criticism of Israel should be distinguished from antisemitism and over how allegations involving members of the Left should be handled politically.
Left faces cross-party pressure over antisemitism and clan contacts
Green parliamentary group leader Britta Haßelmann, on her part, called for decisive action by the Left against antisemitism. She said the party needed to make its position on Israel’s right to exist unmistakable, explain how it intended to combat antisemitism and take concrete action when members made antisemitic remarks or engaged in antisemitic behavior. Haßelmann also specifically criticized the treatment of Ferat Kocak, a Left Party member of the Bundestag, citing alleged ties to organized crime groups. She argued that Kocak’s resignation from the Interior Committee was not enough and that the party leadership needed to take decisive action when circumstances warranted it.
Senior federal Greens have voiced similar security concerns about the possible participation of the Berlin Left in government. Konstantin von Notz, deputy chairman of the Green parliamentary group and a member of the parliamentary body responsible for intelligence oversight, argued that the party’s participation could raise serious questions about the security of sensitive state information. The debate became more heated following reports of contentious interactions between members of the Berlin Left and associates. The party’s election-night event was reportedly attended by a clan leader and a prominent anti-Israel activist, while Kocak acknowledged that he had communicated with members of criminal clans.
Von Notz argued that the Left’s election platform proposed significant restrictions on the authority of police and domestic intelligence agencies. In his view, such limitations could make it more difficult to protect federal institutions and their employees in Berlin, where security agencies regularly confront serious threats. He attributed the political difficulties surrounding the Left’s possible participation in government in part to what he regarded as the party’s failure to demonstrate adequate preparedness for governing.
SPD calls for consequences over Kocak’s clan contact
Dirk Wiese, the SPD’s parliamentary manager in the German Bundestag, also called for consequences for Kocak over his acknowledged communication with a member of a well-known Berlin clan. Wiese argued that an apology was not sufficient and described a relationship between a Bundestag representative and an alleged organized-crime figure as unacceptable. Kocak had previously characterized the exchange of messages with a member of the family as a mistake.
Lastly, constitutional and legal scholars have expressed substantial skepticism about the Left’s plans to socialize large housing corporations. Ulrich Battis, a professor of constitutional law, emphasized that socialization alone would not create additional housing and argued that less intrusive and potentially more effective measures were available. He questioned whether such a policy would satisfy constitutional requirements concerning proportionality and suitability.
Battis stressed that although the constitution permits substantial state intervention under certain circumstances, government measures must nevertheless remain proportionate to their objectives. In his analysis, the central problem facing Berlin was the shortage of housing rather than deficiencies in the existing legal framework. Even so, following its victory in the Berlin state election, the Left has reiterated its intention to pursue the socialization of large real estate companies.
