The Invisible Foundation of German Democracy
If you follow German politics through international media, you encounter a familiar cast of characters: the Chancellor, the coalition parties, the Bundestag, perhaps the occasional Ministerpräsident (state premier) when there’s a dramatic election. The focus is relentlessly national. Germany debates migration, energy policy, relations with Russia and China, the future of the EU. Big, important stuff.
But here’s what rarely makes international headlines: German democracy doesn’t actually run from Berlin. It runs from approximately 11,000 municipalities—towns, cities, and districts that most Germans outside their immediate region have never heard of. While everyone watches the coalition drama in the Bundestag, local governments are quietly making the decisions that actually shape daily life. And they’re falling apart.
This is the great unspoken crisis of German governance. Not dramatic enough for cable news, too technical for viral social media posts, too fragmented across thousands of small jurisdictions to generate a clear national narrative. Yet it might be the most important political story in Germany right now. Because when your local swimming pool closes because the municipality can’t afford to keep it open, or when affordable housing disappears because developers only build luxury apartments, or when your rent increases faster than official statistics claim inflation exists—these aren’t abstract policy failures. They’re the concrete reality of a system breaking down at its foundation.
The federal government can debate grand strategies all it wants. But if municipalities can’t deliver basic services, none of it matters.
The Swimming Pool Problem
Let’s start with swimming pools, because they’re the perfect encapsulation of the municipal crisis.
A public swimming pool isn’t glamorous infrastructure. It doesn’t involve cutting-edge technology or geopolitical strategy. It’s just a hole in the ground filled with chemically treated water where people swim laps and children learn not to drown. Simple, unsexy, absolutely essential.
German municipalities are closing swimming pools at an alarming rate. Not because swimming has gone out of fashion. Not because of some ideological preference. But because they simply cannot afford to keep them open.
The economics are brutal. Swimming pools are expensive to maintain. They require constant upkeep, trained lifeguards, chemical treatment, heating, cleaning. They generate some revenue from admission fees, but nowhere near enough to cover costs. They’re a public service that municipalities provide because they’re valuable to the community—because children need to learn to swim, because public health matters, because not everything worth doing is profitable.
But when municipalities face budget crunches and must choose between keeping the pool open and maintaining other services—fixing roads, funding schools, supporting care facilities—the pool loses. It’s discretionary. It’s not legally mandated. So it closes.
This is happening across Germany. Not in a coordinated way that might generate national attention, but in a death-by-a-thousand-cuts pattern where each municipality makes its own agonizing choice and the aggregate effect is a steady erosion of public amenities.
The swimming pool closures are symptoms of a deeper disease: German municipalities are systematically underfunded relative to their responsibilities. They’re expected to deliver an expanding array of services with stagnant or declining resources. Eventually, something has to give. Usually, it’s the things that aren’t legally required but make life worth living—swimming pools, libraries, community centers, parks, cultural programming.
The Fiscal Straightjacket
To understand why German municipalities are in crisis, you need to understand their impossible fiscal situation.
German federalism distributes responsibilities across three levels: federal (Bund), state (Land), and municipal (Kommune). Each level has certain exclusive responsibilities and certain shared ones. In theory, each level also has revenue sources adequate to fund its responsibilities. In practice, this has broken down completely at the municipal level.
Municipalities are responsible for an enormous range of services: schools, childcare, social services, local infrastructure, public transport, housing support, integration services, and much more. Many of these responsibilities have expanded significantly in recent decades. Childcare guarantees, for instance, have created massive new municipal obligations. Integration of refugees and immigrants happens primarily at the municipal level.
Meanwhile, municipal revenue sources are constrained. They collect some local taxes, receive transfers from state and federal governments, and can charge fees for certain services. But they have limited autonomy to increase revenues. They can’t easily raise taxes without driving residents and businesses to neighboring municipalities. Federal and state transfers never quite keep pace with expanding responsibilities. Fee increases hit residents directly and are politically toxic.
The result is a structural deficit. Municipalities are expected to do more with less, year after year. When economic downturns reduce tax revenues, they’re told to tighten their belts. When the economy grows, the extra revenue gets absorbed by accumulated maintenance backlogs and expanded service demands. There’s never enough.
This creates a destructive spiral. Underfunded services decay. Deferred maintenance accumulates. Eventually, things break—sometimes literally, as with collapsing school buildings or road infrastructure—and emergency repairs cost far more than proper maintenance would have. But there’s never money for proper maintenance because there are too many immediate crises demanding attention.
Swimming pools are visible symbols of this crisis because their closure is obvious and affects many people. But the same dynamic plays out in less visible ways across every area of municipal responsibility. Schools operating with outdated equipment. Social services stretched impossibly thin. Infrastructure crumbling incrementally. Each individual failure seems like a local problem. Collectively, they represent a system under enormous strain.
The Inflation Nobody Sees (Except Everyone Who Lives Here)
This brings us to one of the most politically corrosive aspects of the municipal crisis: the gap between official inflation statistics and lived experience.
According to official statistics, German inflation has been manageable—elevated by global energy price shocks, but nothing catastrophic. The numbers show modest increases in the general price level, within ranges that central bankers consider acceptable.
But ask actual Germans about their experience, and you hear a different story. Rent has exploded. Food costs have soared. Energy bills have become crushing. Everything feels dramatically more expensive, and wages haven’t kept pace.
This creates a profound disconnect. Politicians cite official statistics showing inflation is under control. Citizens look at their bank statements and feel gaslit. Both are technically correct, but operating in different realities.
Part of this is about how inflation is measured. Official statistics use baskets of goods weighted by typical spending patterns. But not everyone’s spending pattern matches the statistical average. If you rent (rather than own), if you spend a high proportion of income on food and energy (rather than discretionary items), if you live in a rapidly gentrifying area—your personal inflation rate might be double or triple the official figure.
Municipalities feel this acutely because they’re caught in the middle. They see residents struggling with costs that official statistics say are moderate. They face their own version of hidden inflation—maintenance and service costs rising faster than revenues. But when they try to raise taxes or fees to cope, they’re accused of fiscal mismanagement because “inflation is only 4%.”
This credibility gap has profound political consequences. It breeds cynicism about official statistics and expert pronouncements. It creates space for populist narratives about elites who don’t understand real people’s problems. And it makes it nearly impossible to have honest conversations about municipal finance because the baseline facts—how much are costs actually rising?—are contested.
The Housing Paradox
Nowhere is the gap between official policy and lived reality more stark than in housing.
Germany faces an acknowledged housing crisis. Rents have skyrocketed, especially in cities. Affordable housing is increasingly scarce. Waiting lists for social housing stretch for years. Young people can’t afford to move out of their parents’ homes. Families are crammed into inadequate spaces. The problem is obvious, severe, and getting worse.
So naturally, municipalities and developers are… tearing down existing affordable housing to build expensive new apartments?
This is the perverse logic of the current system. Developers look at areas with aging housing stock—not luxury apartments, but functional, affordable buildings where working-class families have lived for decades. They see an opportunity. Tear down the old buildings. Build new, modern apartments. Sell or rent them at premium prices. Profit.
From a pure market logic, this makes sense. New construction generates better returns than maintaining old buildings. Wealthy buyers and renters are willing to pay premium prices. The land is worth more with new development than with existing affordable housing.
From any other perspective, it’s insane. You have a housing affordability crisis. The solution is to destroy affordable housing and replace it with expensive housing? But that’s exactly what’s happening across German cities.
Municipalities often lack the tools to prevent this. Property rights are strongly protected. Developers who follow zoning regulations can generally build what they want. Municipalities can try to negotiate for some affordable units as part of new developments, but their leverage is limited. The fundamental dynamic—tear down the affordable, build the expensive—continues unabated.
This creates a bitter irony. Politicians acknowledge the housing crisis. They announce initiatives to create more affordable housing. They fund programs and offer incentives. And meanwhile, on the ground, the stock of affordable housing keeps shrinking as old buildings come down and expensive ones go up.
The net effect might actually be increasing the affordability problem even while official policy claims to be addressing it. But because the two dynamics—policy initiatives and market-driven demolition and reconstruction—operate on different tracks, the contradiction is rarely confronted directly.
The Mismatch: Local Problems, National Attention
Part of why the municipal crisis remains relatively invisible is a fundamental mismatch in how political attention works.
National media covers national politics. The Chancellor’s latest statement, coalition disputes, federal legislation, Germany’s role in the EU—these are the stories that get coverage. When local issues make national news, it’s usually because they exemplify some larger national trend or because something dramatic has happened.
But most municipal problems aren’t dramatic. They’re incremental. A swimming pool closes here, a library reduces hours there, a school building deteriorates gradually, housing affordability erodes year by year. Each individual case might make local news, but it doesn’t rise to national attention. The aggregate pattern—systematic municipal underfunding and service erosion—remains hidden because it’s fragmented across thousands of jurisdictions.
Meanwhile, municipalities lack the platforms or mechanisms to make their collective crisis visible. There’s no equivalent of the Bundestag for municipalities. Individual mayors might speak out, but they’re representing their specific community, not making national policy. Municipal associations exist, but they’re technical, bureaucratic organizations without much political clout.
So the paradox persists: the level of government that most directly shapes daily life operates in near-invisibility, while national politics that often has less immediate impact on most people’s lives dominates attention.
This suits some interests just fine. If the municipal fiscal crisis were truly visible, it might force uncomfortable conversations about federal and state priorities. Why are municipalities starved for resources while the federal government finds money for various pet projects? Why do states impose new mandates on municipalities without providing adequate funding? Why is affordable housing being destroyed while politicians claim to care about housing affordability?
These questions have answers, of course. But they’re politically inconvenient answers involving difficult trade-offs and powerful interests. Much easier to keep the municipal crisis safely invisible.
The Legitimacy Problem
But here’s the thing about invisible crises: they eventually become visible through their effects.
When people’s daily lives get worse—when the pool closes, when rent becomes unaffordable, when basic services deteriorate—they notice. They might not understand the fiscal and structural reasons behind these failures. They might not follow the complex intergovernmental finance discussions. But they know things are getting worse.
This creates a legitimacy problem for the entire political system. People expect government to provide basic services and maintain quality of life. When government fails to do so—even for complex structural reasons—trust erodes.
The danger is that this erosion happens locally but gets interpreted nationally. Your municipality can’t afford to keep the pool open because of systemic underfunding. But you don’t blame “systemic underfunding.” You blame “the government.” And in Germany’s parliamentary system, “the government” means the coalition in Berlin.
So national governments face consequences for failures that are primarily municipal, but that they haven’t adequately resourced municipalities to prevent. It’s a perfect setup for political crisis: blame without power, responsibility without resources.
This helps explain some of Germany’s current political turbulence. People are dissatisfied, and they’re right to be dissatisfied—things are getting worse in concrete, measurable ways. But the dissatisfaction gets channeled into national politics, where it manifests as support for protest parties or cynicism about “the establishment,” rather than into productive engagement with the actual source of many problems: the fiscal crisis of municipalities.
The AfD and other populist movements benefit enormously from this dynamic. They can point to failing public services, deteriorating infrastructure, and declining quality of life, and blame it on national government incompetence or malice. They’re not wrong that things are failing. They’re just misdiagnosing the cause—or rather, they’re deliberately redirecting anger from a complex structural problem toward simpler villains (immigrants, the EU, elites).
Meanwhile, the parties trying to govern responsibly face an impossible situation. They can’t adequately fund municipalities without massive tax increases or spending cuts elsewhere, either of which is politically toxic. But if they don’t adequately fund municipalities, services continue deteriorating and voters punish them anyway.
The Infrastructure Nobody Sees
The swimming pool problem is just one example of a broader infrastructure crisis playing out at the municipal level.
German infrastructure—once world-renowned for reliability and quality—is aging badly. Bridges need replacement. Roads have potholes. School buildings are literally crumbling in some cases. Digital infrastructure lags absurdly behind other developed nations.
Some of this is federal or state responsibility. But much of it falls to municipalities: local roads, school buildings, public facilities, utilities infrastructure. And municipalities, facing the fiscal pressures described above, defer maintenance. It’s the easiest budget cut to make because the consequences aren’t immediate. Skip road resurfacing this year and the road gets a bit worse, but it doesn’t collapse. Delay school building renovation and it gets shabbier, but classes continue. Put off replacing aging utility infrastructure and it keeps working… until it doesn’t.
This creates a time bomb. Deferred maintenance accumulates as “infrastructure debt”—not financial debt, but a growing backlog of necessary work that hasn’t been done. Eventually, infrastructure that could have been maintained relatively cheaply now needs expensive emergency repairs or complete replacement.
Germany is reaching the point where decades of deferred maintenance are coming due simultaneously. But municipalities still don’t have the resources to address it. So the crisis perpetuates: infrastructure continues deteriorating, the backlog continues growing, and eventually something will have to give—either massive new funding, which seems politically implausible, or acceptance of permanently degraded public infrastructure, which would represent a historic reversal for Germany.
When the Foundation Cracks
There’s a metaphor here that’s almost too on-the-nose: municipalities are the foundation of German governance, and the foundation is cracking.
Everything built on that foundation—federal policy, state initiatives, national political debates—assumes that municipalities can deliver basic services and maintain local infrastructure. When that assumption breaks down, everything else becomes unstable.
You can have the best federal education policy in the world, but if school buildings are falling apart and municipalities can’t hire enough teachers, it doesn’t matter. You can have innovative energy transition strategies, but if local governments can’t maintain infrastructure or support implementation, it stalls. You can debate migration and integration endlessly at the national level, but integration happens primarily through municipal services—schools, housing, social services—and if those are overstretched and underfunded, integration fails.
The municipal crisis isn’t separate from Germany’s other challenges. It’s the underlying condition that makes those challenges harder to address.
The Question Nobody’s Asking
All of which raises an obvious question: why isn’t fixing municipal finance a top political priority?
Part of the answer is visibility—as discussed, the crisis is fragmented and incremental in ways that don’t generate sustained national attention. Part is political difficulty—actually fixing it would require either major tax increases (unpopular) or reallocation from other priorities (everyone defends their favored programs). Part is complexity—intergovernmental fiscal relationships are technical and boring, not the stuff of rousing political campaigns.
But part might be a deeper unwillingness to confront what fixing the municipal crisis would actually require: fundamental rethinking of how German federalism works, what government can realistically provide with available resources, and what trade-offs Germans are willing to make.
It’s easier to muddle through, hoping the crisis resolves itself or at least doesn’t get bad enough to force action. Each municipality makes its own painful cuts. Each community experiences its own version of declining services. But as long as it stays fragmented and local, the national political system doesn’t have to confront it.
This is a dangerous game. Crises don’t resolve themselves through benign neglect. They metastasize. And a crisis in municipal governance—the level of government that most directly shapes daily life and most directly affects how citizens experience democracy—is ultimately a crisis of democratic legitimacy.
Swimming Pools and global Politics
Which brings us back to swimming pools, and my sardonic title: “Swimming Pools and global Politics.”
The juxtaposition is deliberate. While Germany debates its role in global affairs—relations with Russia, support for Ukraine, managing relations with China, strengthening European integration—municipalities are struggling to keep swimming pools open.
Both matter. Germany needs coherent foreign policy. But it also needs functional municipalities. And there’s a real question about how much the former matters if the latter is failing.
What good is Germany’s commitment to the international order if German communities can’t provide basic amenities? What does it mean to be a leading European nation if your own cities are tearing down affordable housing and closing public facilities? How can Germany lecture other countries about governance if its own municipal infrastructure is crumbling?
These questions might sound rhetorical or petty. They’re not. They’re fundamental. Because ultimately, political legitimacy rests on delivering for citizens. And right now, at the municipal level where delivery actually happens, German governance is increasingly failing to deliver.
The swimming pool might seem trivial compared to world politics. But the swimming pool is real. It’s concrete. It’s where people actually interact with government. And when it closes because government can’t afford to keep it open, that’s not a trivial failure. That’s a sign that something fundamental isn’t working.
Germany’s parties are learning this the hard way. They can have all the sophisticated foreign policy debates they want. They can craft elegant coalition agreements and pass impressive-sounding legislation. But if municipalities can’t deliver basic services, if housing becomes unaffordable, if public infrastructure degrades—voters notice. And increasingly, voters respond by withdrawing support from the parties that govern at the national level, even when those parties aren’t primarily responsible for the municipal failures.
The irony is almost poetic. German federalism was designed to prevent concentration of power and ensure responsive governance close to citizens. The municipal level was supposed to be democracy at its most direct and effective. But through a combination of fiscal constraints, shifting responsibilities, and structural problems, municipalities have become the weakest link in the system.
And unlike the grand debates in Berlin, this is a crisis that can’t be solved through clever coalition negotiations or inspiring speeches. It requires money, political will, and fundamental restructuring of how German governance works. None of which are currently on offer.
So the swimming pools keep closing. The affordable housing keeps disappearing. The infrastructure keeps deteriorating. And while politicians in Berlin debate world affairs, the foundation of German democracy continues quietly cracking beneath their feet.
That’s not a crisis that will announce itself with a dramatic collapse. It’s a crisis of slow erosion, of incremental failure, of death by a thousand cuts. But the endpoint is the same: a system that no longer delivers on its basic promises, and citizens who increasingly doubt whether it ever will again.
The question isn’t whether this crisis will eventually force a response. It’s whether that response will come through deliberate reform or through more destructive political upheaval when the accumulated failures become too large to ignore.
For now, the swimming pools are an early warning system. When even the pools close, you know something fundamental has gone wrong. The only question is whether anyone in power is paying attention.
Germansplainer 
Hinterlasse einen Kommentar