Boris Palmer: party elimination process disrupts the election campaign of the Greens

Enlarge image

Boris Palmer at the online party conference of the Greens

Photo: Marijan Murat / dpa

A special constellation is required for a party chairman and candidate for chancellor to react to the mayor's Facebook post in a city with almost 90,000 inhabitants.

But Boris Palmer is no ordinary mayor, and neither is an ordinary green.

That is why Annalena Baerbock reacted to the statement that had triggered the latest scandal about Palmer and now leads to a party exclusion process.

Not because Baerbock and Palmer are equally important, but because the most important green party was needed to counter the greatest inner-party threat to the election campaign.

"Boris Palmer's statement is racist and repulsive," tweeted Baerbock on Saturday morning.

"After the renewed incident, our state and federal committees discuss the corresponding consequences, including exclusion procedures." Approval, for example from parliamentary group leader Katrin-Göring-Eckardt or the first parliamentary manager Britta Haßelmann, followed immediately.

Palmer's Facebook post about footballer Dennis Aogo was the latest in a series of border crossings.

But even with a party exclusion process, the problem is not over for the Greens.

The Palmer case could torpedo the hitherto very smooth election campaign.

From the upcoming star to the outsider

Palmer, 48, was considered the coming man of the Greens in Baden-Württemberg many years ago.

As Lord Mayor of the university town of Tübingen, he had earned respect long before the Greens could have realistic hopes for state chancellery or even the chancellery.

Through escapades, disruptive fire and in the past few years again and again racist remarks, however, he has also fundamentally destroyed this respect.

Palmer sat on talk shows, Palmer wrote books, Palmer gave interviews to national media.

For occasional observers of federal politics, he looked like a very relevant Green.

But his relationship with his own party has long been shattered.

Palmer is an outsider, a political outlaw.

His party doesn't want him.

But he needs the party because it makes him interesting nationwide: A green man who opposes a Deutsche Bahn diversity campaign gets much more attention than a conservative who does that.

Distancing without exclusion

A year ago, the state board of the Greens in Baden-Württemberg withdrew its trust in Palmer in a resolution.

It said:

• "Boris Palmer acts systematically against our party."

• "The state executive confirms that it will no longer support Boris Palmer in candidacies for political offices."

• "The state executive expects Boris Palmer to leave our party."

There is no harder way to distance yourself.

Palmer just didn't think about leaving the party.

And the Greens have so far always shied away from a party expulsion process: Maybe because Palmer fascinates some of the voters.

Perhaps because they did not want to expose themselves to the charge of suppressing unpleasant opinions.

Perhaps because the SPD's lengthy party exclusion process against Thilo Sarrazin showed how difficult something like this is.

On the other hand, Palmer has long been unbearable for many supporters and many Greens.

Aren't the Greens a decidedly anti-racist party?

Even if they insist that Palmer isn't actually one of them - he is.

And now he is disrupting an election campaign that has so far gone so well that the Greens are on a par with or even ahead of the Union in polls.

The scandal followed familiar patterns

When Palmer's Facebook post began circulating on Twitter on Friday evening, a scandal could be observed as it emerged.

There were increasing questions about a reaction by the Greens.

At this moment there are only bad options for a party: if it reacts quickly, it fuels the scandal, it makes someone like Palmer great and important.

If she does not react or only reacts slowly, she is accused of silent toleration.

Had it not been Palmer but someone from the Union who wrote the post, one can assume that the first Greens would have been quick to scandalize the post.

So it was surprisingly quiet on Friday.

It was heard from the party that the board would comment on Saturday.

"Boris Palmer is clearly going too far and always going too far"

Oliver Hildenbrand, head of the Greens in Baden-Württemberg

Then Baerbock gave the direction.

Not the federal managing director, who would otherwise probably take over this job, not even co-boss Robert Habeck, but the chancellor candidate personally.

Obviously, there should be no doubt that the party really means business.

For the Grünenspitze it was a lucky coincidence that the digital state party conference of Palmer's state association Baden-Württemberg took place this Saturday.

On Saturday morning, members submitted an urgent motion: The state executive should apply to the district arbitration court for a party expulsion procedure.

"Boris Palmer clearly goes too far and always too far," said the country chief Oliver Hildenbrand in his speech on the proposal: "The measure is full."

Palmer himself held the counter-speech. He did not mean it seriously, he did not accept ostracism, the motion should suppress him and his dissenting opinion.

But: "I want to justify myself to a party court." He will now be able to do that.

What Baerbock had mentioned as an option is now a fact: Palmer is to be thrown out of the party.

Baerbock's statement gave at least a moment's calm: If the chancellor candidate is so clear, no one has to ask about the positions of less important party members.

Nobody can accuse the Greens of having accepted Palmer's derailment.

But that doesn't mean the danger is over.

First, the party can still be accused of tolerating Palmer too long instead of acting consistently early on.

In fact, this indecision is now falling on the Greens' feet.

Instead of dealing with the process in a quiet phase, it falls in the middle of the federal election campaign.

Second, the process can fail.

The legal hurdles for expulsion from the party are high, so that the instrument cannot be misused to suppress criticism.

Thirdly, the further course is already becoming apparent: Palmer will defend himself.

There may be supporters who accuse the Greens of excessive moralism and "cancel culture" - Palmer himself gave this story in his speech.

In any case, Palmer is listened to, he gets a platform and again a lot of attention.

The Greens will be busy defending themselves against allegations of having a problem with freedom - or fending off allegations of not taking racism seriously enough.

Maybe both at the same time.

It is not good news, and most importantly, it is not one that the Greens can control.

The undisturbed election campaign is over for now.