The term “Sondervermögen” (special purpose vehicle) has been declared the “Word of the Year” for 2025, highlighting a growing concern over obfuscation in German political discourse. Announced Tuesday by the jury of the “Unwort des Jahres” campaign in Marburg, the designation reflects the increasingly prevalent use of the term within public and political language, particularly in debates surrounding national debt and investment programs.
The jury’s critique centers on the technical nature of “Sondervermögen” and the deliberate ambiguity it introduces. They argue that its usage serves to mask the underlying reality: the accumulation of public debt. Critics contend that the term’s deployment is manipulative, designed to circumvent democratic deliberation on the necessity of borrowing. By employing such jargon, policymakers effectively sidestep direct scrutiny and erode transparency regarding financial commitments. This avoidance of clarity and candor, the jury argued, is ethically unacceptable, particularly given the broad implications of public debt for all citizens.
The selection of “Sondervermögen” underscores a broader trend of concerning linguistic practices within the German political landscape. Other terms appearing on the jury’s list – “Zustrombegrenzungsgesetz” (inflow limitation law) and “Umsiedlung” (resettlement) – signal anxieties surrounding immigration policy and related societal changes. The sheer volume of submissions, totaling 2,631, further emphasizes the public’s sensitivity to the language used by political actors.
Notably, other contenders included terms like “Deal” “Brandmauer” (firewall) and “Friedensangst” (fear of peace), reflecting anxieties ranging from economic negotiations to geopolitical tensions. The annual “Unwort des Jahres” jury, comprised of linguists and a journalist, aims to expose instances where language is used to obscure meaning, manipulate public opinion and ultimately undermine democratic discourse. Their decision to highlight “Sondervermögen” serves as a pointed reminder of the importance of linguistic accountability and the need for politicians to engage in transparent and understandable communication with the electorate. The selection strongly suggests a growing public distrust of politically engineered terminology designed to mask underlying realities.