A Blunder with Potential

There are blunders after which a politician resigns. Blunders after which a press spokesperson resigns. And then there are blunders after which perhaps no one resigns at all, but someone moves into Berlin’s Red City Hall. The comments by Elif Eralp that were accidentally sent to SPIEGEL could fall into the third category. They should really become a stumbling block for the Left Party politician. Should. 

What became public raises a rather uncomfortable question: Could a potential Governing Mayor allow fear of extremists to influence political decisions? 

That alone would provide enough material for a full-blown political crisis. The potential coalition partners, the SPD and the Greens, should be highly alarmed. Yet other issues are now being discussed: journalistic standards, privacy, the safety of a politician, portrayals of women, discrimination and the question of what the media is permitted to do. 

One can find this shift politically troubling while also professionally acknowledging its communicative effectiveness

Let us start from the beginning. Ibrahim Ibrahim is an activist associated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, or PFLP. The organisation was involved in the massacre in Israel on 7 October 2023 and is classified as a terrorist organisation by the European Union. Ibrahim Ibrahim posts images glorifying violence on social media and agitates against Israel. 

Following the election to the Berlin House of Representatives in September, the activist appeared at a Left Party election event in Neukölln. Party representatives posed for selfies with the Hamas sympathiser. The outrage followed immediately. 

During exploratory coalition talks with the SPD and the Greens, Elif Eralp and her party had just about managed to contain the issue. Then someone pressed “Send”. Elif Eralp’s press team sent an edited interview, including personal comments in the margins, to SPIEGEL. In the notes, Elif Eralp wrote that Elif Eralp and Elif Eralp’s husband were afraid of Ibrahim Ibrahim and the people around him. For this reason, Elif Eralp did not want to answer a question about Ibrahim Ibrahim and even considered withdrawing from the interview altogether. The politician gives the impression of fearing psychological intimidation and physical violence. 

SPIEGEL published the internal communication. The magazine’s justification was that the public needed to know if a potential head of government was allowing fear of extremists to influence political decisions, particularly when those extremists came from within the politician’s own party environment. The crisis had arrived. It simply did not remain the same crisis for very long.

Elif Eralp does something psychologically smart in the response. Elif Eralp does not try to explain away the fear. Elif Eralp does not claim that the comments were misunderstood. Elif Eralp does not deny what was written. Instead, Elif Eralp does something remarkable: Elif Eralp stands by it.

In a combative video statement, Elif Eralp declares that intimidation will not succeed. Then Elif Eralp turns the focus around. The marginal notes are no longer at the centre of the story. SPIEGEL is. Elif Eralp accuses the magazine of violating journalistic standards and even endangering personal safety by publishing internal material. 

The communicative masterstroke is that Elif Eralp is suddenly no longer the only one with a problem. SPIEGEL has one too. The magazine must explain why it published internal comments. Yet Elif Eralp should really be explaining the political consequences of allowing fear of extremists to influence political actions. The first question is now the subject of passionate public debate. After all, a crisis remains truly unpleasant only for as long as one remains its central character.

It helps Elif Eralp that the fear is not described as a political weakness, but as something profoundly human. Elif Eralp emphasises being a politician, but also a human being and a mother. And who would condemn a mother for worrying about the family’s safety? 

With just a few words, the frame changes. A question about political leadership becomes a question about humanity. Fear is suddenly no longer the potential weakness of a future Governing Mayor. It becomes evidence that a human being is involved in politics, rather than a fearless governing machine. 

Elif Eralp’s supporters go one step further. Fellow party member Bodo Ramelow accuses SPIEGEL of perpetuating the outdated stereotype of the weak woman. This shifts the burden of justification once again: Elif Eralp is no longer the only person under pressure. The critics must now explain themselves as well. 

That is effective. However, it does not answer the original question: How would a Governing Mayor respond to extremist pressure when it has concrete political consequences? Humanity is a good response to the question of whether politicians are allowed to be afraid. It is not an answer to the question of whether fear should determine political actions.

Elif Eralp broadens the frame once again. Elif Eralp speaks about being a migrant and about discrimination and racism. Elif Eralp emphasises a commitment to the safety of everyone in Berlin, including Jewish people and Muslim people who experience discrimination. This is an offer to a diverse city. It creates the image of a bridge-builder who understands threats and exclusion from personal experience. However, this does not make the specific problem involving Ibrahim Ibrahim and the people around him any smaller. 

Another accusation is now added to the debate among Elif Eralp’s supporters: the media coverage and conservative criticism are said to be exploiting racist prejudice. A politician with a migrant background is being associated with organised criminality or Islamist terrorism, even though Elif Eralp is the person facing threats. Once again, the perspective has shifted. 

Elif Eralp is no longer the only person expected to explain how extremists would be handled. The critics are now expected to explain their motives for criticising Elif Eralp. From a communications perspective, this is skilful. Politically, however, matters are not quite so simple.

Then the Berlin State Criminal Police Office enters the discussion. Elif Eralp explains that the decision to exercise restraint was based on an earlier recommendation from the police authority not to mention specific names in public statements. Originally, however, this advice referred to handling organised crime. 

But once again, the mere reference changes the tone of the story. What initially looked like capitulation in the face of intimidation suddenly sounds like professional caution and a form of threat prevention recommended by the authorities. 

Then something politically remarkable happens. The affair that could have weakened Elif Eralp within the party instead unites the party behind Elif Eralp, despite its deep divisions over the coalition question. More than 100 Left Party politicians support Elif Eralp in a public statement. Within that political camp, the SPIEGEL story is not seen as an exposé of a political problem, but as a media campaign against a red-green-red government under Left Party leadership. 

The opponent has therefore been replaced. At the beginning of the story, the question concerned the influence of extremists within the Left Party’s environment. By the end, the discussion concerns whether SPIEGEL went too far and whether the media follows its own agenda instead of simply reporting the news.

That is quite an achievement. But it does not make the contradictions disappear. How does the demonstrative resolve of a potential head of government fit with the fact that fear of extremists led Elif Eralp to request the removal of a specific answer from an interview? As Governing Mayor, how would Elif Eralp confront forces that Elif Eralp admits to fearing? And what role do such groups play within the party? 

Convincing answers remain absent. Why does this not appear to trouble anyone, including the potential coalition partners? But perhaps this is precisely the real lesson of the affair. Political communication is not always won by the person who gives the best answer to an uncomfortable question. Sometimes it is won by the person who succeeds in getting a different question asked.

SPIEGEL wanted to show that Elif Eralp was afraid of people within the party’s own environment. Elif Eralp turned it into a debate about whether that fear should be held against Elif Eralp. This does not answer the political question. But it is highly effective crisis communication. 

And so a blunder that should perhaps have stopped Elif Eralp on the path to Berlin’s Red City Hall could ultimately turn into one that helps Elif Eralp get there. A blunder with potential.