Although we don’t have a direct election for chancellor, the candidate embodies a political vision. Its success hinges on the credibility the chancellor conveys. When it comes to economic matters, Friedrich Merz appears competent. However, competence alone is not enough. If people distrust him, they will remain hesitant – regardless of any policy incentives – when it comes to investing and spending. And ending this hesitation is exactly what he aims to achieve.

Anyone who wants to lead people or a society needs emotional intelligence and a positive presence. The goal is to instill confidence – both in consumers and business owners. He seems to lack the necessary vision and accompanying narrative.

Obama energised people with „Yes we can!“. Trump had „Make America great again!“. But Merz only speaks of a policy shift. But unlike former US President Barack Obama's „Yes we can!“, his message lacks an underlying vision. Similarly, former US President John F. Kennedy didn’t just announce an investment in space exploration – he declared the goal of sending a man to the moon („We choose to go to the Moon!“). Without a vision and a credible path to achieve it, populists have an easy time fuelling fear and uncertainty.

The challenge for Merz is that change initially triggers resistance because our brains perceive it as a threat. People tend to stick to familiar circumstances – even if they become increasingly uncomfortable. This is the foundation of populist strategies: they lure people in with a return to the familiar. But those who want real change must sell it not just intellectually but emotionally.

So far, the political shift has been justified mainly by pointing out the failures of others and painting a bleak picture of Germany’s decline. However, to win people over, he must highlight the concrete benefits of change. He needs to provide examples of how everyone in Germany will gain from it. People must feel included. Right now, they are being threatened with dire consequences if they resist change – that is the wrong approach.

Take the introduction of seat belts in cars. People initially resisted, feeling restricted. It was only when campaigns emphasised personal stories and clear benefits – such as „Your life secured in three seconds“ – that attitudes changed. Today, buckling up is second nature. Change succeeds when people not only understand but also feel why it is necessary. A positive narrative and tangible decisions are needed to drive transformation forward.

These surveys often reflect what is already socially accepted or in progress. Polling tends to reinforce this, much like social media, where campaigns exploit weaknesses and amplify them. Politicians should not blindly follow these numbers but instead seek to understand what truly drives people, where their insecurities lie, and what psychological resistance they may have. If they grasp these factors and respond accordingly, approval ratings can rise again quickly. In that sense, Merz should not be unsettled by the currently low approval ratings.

Former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt once said: „Anyone who has visions should see a doctor!“ But from a psychological standpoint, that was incorrect. People need a complete package: facts and actions, such as special funds and coalition agreements, but also a vision or a goal of where they want to go. If citizens or their children can look forward to a better future, they are even willing to endure some hardships. Therefore, how we engage with each other is crucial. Security only arises through shared experiences. In psychology, we call this co-regulation: only when we sense that others remain emotionally stable even in difficult circumstances and convey confidence can we calm ourselves and think clearly. What is needed, then, is a grand narrative and a major project that provides people with stability.

If it once again results in formulaic compromises and a collection of CDU/CSU and SPD wish lists, it would be the exact opposite of what is needed to win back citizens. Moreover, they would have no assurance that the money for new billion-euro projects is being used wisely. That would also be dangerous for democracy in Germany.

Even now, people criticise democracy for responding inadequately and always too late to external and internal shocks. Political compromise is often perceived negatively because it lacks precision. If a coalition is formed on the basis of the lowest common denominator and without clear direction, this issue will arise again. Then, another psychological mechanism kicks in, pushing people even further toward populism: people instinctively look for someone to blame, a scapegoat. In the current situation, that would be the so-called „established parties.“

Our democracy needs a structural update as well, to speed up processes and make responsibilities more transparent. The Initiative for an Effective State recently put forward some proposals. Implementing these would secure the future of our democracy by making the work of populists more difficult.

People always seek a sense of belonging, even if the group does not necessarily align with their own views. The desire for identity and affiliation is often stronger than cold, hard facts. The more people commit to a particular group, the easier it becomes to take that step, and a certain momentum develops.

When people feel disappointed by politicians, they quickly assume: „They don’t care about us!“ This feeling grows when decisions are made opaquely or when tax money seems to disappear into bureaucracy without any impact. Trust can only be restored when political leaders acknowledge mistakes and work toward improvements. The sense of belonging to populist movements can also be counteracted through civic participation. When people feel taken seriously and have a say, trust emerges – and from trust, the power to develop new solutions. Why not embrace more citizen participation?

The problem here is also the system’s complexity, combined with immense bureaucracy for businesses, taxpayers, and welfare recipients alike. Too many agencies, an opaque administration, and unclear responsibilities. Extreme positions are so appealing because they offer simple, emotionally compelling explanations. Our brain prefers simplification, especially in times of great uncertainty. Complexity causes insecurity, particularly since the social market economy is currently not delivering notable successes. The solutions have long been on the table. Examples include streamlining social welfare programs and replacing subsidy schemes with a straightforward CO₂ tax, along with the necessary oversight. Every delay in implementing reforms further damages the credibility of the market economy and capitalism. Yet, economic reforms would yield positive results faster than in other areas and could restore confidence in our economic system.