On 9 November, the day on which Germany commemorates its ruptures and turning points, Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier delivered a speech at Schloss Bellevue that appeared less cautionary than divisive. Under the guise of remembrance, the head of state used the occasion to morally condemn political opponents – an appearance that raises questions about the role of the Federal President and the state of democratic debate culture.
Remembrance or Ideological Politics?
In his address, Steinmeier emphasized the “danger to democracy from right-wing extremist forces” and called for “resistance against the enemies of freedom.” At first glance, these words may sound like a call for responsibility – but in reality, they reveal a dangerous tendency: the president assumes the role of judge over the political convictions of the country.
By speaking of a “democracy in danger” without differentiating, Steinmeier conflates political opposition with extremism. His speech was imbued with moral certainty and implicit accusation – as if Germany consisted of only two camps: the “good,” who follow his line, and the “bad,” who criticize the government and the elites.
This is no coincidence, but rather an expression of an increasingly entrenched state rhetoric that automatically pushes dissenters into proximity with enemies of democracy.
A President as a Divider
A federal president should build bridges. But Steinmeier chose the path of polarization. His speech was less a call for cohesion and more an attack on the political spectrum to the right of the center – with pointed remarks aimed at protest voters, government critics, and all those who express “mistrust.”
With statements like “We must not remain silent when hatred becomes loud,” he created a climate in which differing opinions can quickly be labeled as “hate speech.” The president, who presents himself as a “guardian of democracy,” thus unintentionally contributes to the narrowing of public discourse.
But who decides what constitutes “hate”? If legitimate criticism of the government, migration policy, or the EU is already considered dangerous, then freedom of expression itself is put to the test.
Morality Instead of Responsibility
9 November stands for both the darkest and brightest moments in German history – the November pogroms, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the breakthrough into freedom. Instead of honoring this historical spectrum, Steinmeier instrumentalized the day of remembrance to reinforce his own political interpretation.
The victims of dictatorship and violence were reduced to extras in a moral narrative about “today’s threats.” Yet political sermons do not replace genuine historical reflection. On such a day, humility would have been appropriate – not self-righteousness.
A Day of Remembrance Loses Its Dignity
When the highest representative of the state uses 9 November to agitate against parts of his own population, the act of remembrance itself is devalued. Instead of an impartial symbol of collective memory, the impression remains of a partisan speech that divides more than it unites.
Steinmeier’s words may have been born out of concern – but in their moral sharpness they resemble a fiery denunciation of his own people. In doing so, he undermines the very democratic culture he claims to defend.
Conclusion: The Wrong Tone at the Wrong Time
Germany does not need ideological lecturing on 9 November – it needs honest self-reflection.
It needs statesmen who listen rather than preach. Steinmeier’s speech could have been a sign of unity – instead, it became a lesson in the growing alienation between the political elite and the population. When a federal president turns a day of remembrance into a political pillory, it is not a sign of strength, but of weakness.
