Caught between a loss of trust and the pressure to act lies a question that every company has faced in times of crisis: Who speaks up when it matters – and will they still be believed?
Background
German democracy is not in a state of acute emergency. It is in an extraordinary situation. The difference is significant: An acute crisis forces a response. An extraordinary situation can be managed – often until the scope for action is lost.
Trust in institutions is declining. Political rhetoric is losing its power to unite. The media are caught between taking a stance and maintaining credibility. What is emerging is not a single failure, but a structural communication problem – with consequences for the economy, society, and every organization that seeks to make an impact in this environment.
Three Observations
First: The political center has lost its narrative.
Stable democracies thrive on robust narratives – not glossy ones, but those marked by transparent consistency. Anyone following the political debate in Germany today sees the opposite: rapid shifts in position, tactical spin, and avoidance rather than clarification. This isn’t just a stylistic problem. It’s a reputational problem.
Second: Crisis communication has been replaced by crisis rhetoric.
In situations critical to success, what matters less is what is communicated than how – and with what degree of credibility. Political actors have gotten into the habit of framing every dispute in dramatic terms. The result is desensitization. If everything is a turning point, then nothing is one anymore.
Third: The fringes communicate with greater confidence than the center.
Populist figures have mastered a craft that has been lost in the democratic center: simple, accessible language, clearly defined audiences, and emotional connection. Often factually incorrect – but communicatively precise. Anyone who merely laments this instead of learning from it fails to understand the mechanics of modern public discourse.
What This Means for Decision-Makers
Companies operating in this environment face a dual challenge. They must protect their own reputation – in a public sphere where political polarization can turn any corporate statement into a political stance. And they must provide guidance where political institutions no longer do so credibly.
This is no exaggeration, but rather the reality facing supervisory boards, executive boards, and communications departments. Anyone today who communicates a transformation, oversees a restructuring, or defends a location does so in an environment marked by political uncertainty. This uncertainty is part of the extraordinary situation – and it demands a response.
