Angela Merkel's press conference on Monday had the air of a coronation. The official announcement of her ascendance to the chancellery was accompanied by the pops of flashbulbs and flattering questions from journalists. Her dream had come true.

Of course, the fairy tale didn't last: when the clock struck midnight, Merkel's carriage turned into a pumpkin. Indeed, even as Tuesday morning's papers were festooned with photos of Merkel's smile, prominent politicians were taking the air out of her balloon. Two men from opposite sides of the political aisle independently turned their attention to the gritty details of the in-coming government and happened to agree on one thing: Merkel's personal mandate was weak.

Franz Müntefering, head of the Social Democratic Party, and Edmund Stoiber, leader of the CSU (Bavarian sister-party of Merkel's conservative CDU), both argued that the special nature of the grand coalition reduced the chancellor's authority. According to them, the power to determine the direction of policy won't belong to Merkel alone. But the German Constitution seems to give decisive political discretion to the sitting chancellor. So who will crack the whip in the coming grand coalition? And what exactly is the chancellor's role, anyway? German papers weigh in.

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung gives a clear-eyed analysis. The editors note that the power of the chancellor to determine the direction of policy is exaggerated. First, the Constitution grants cabinet ministers a good amount of autonomy over policy formulation. Second, new laws always need to be cleared by two houses parliament before going into effect. And third, a new government is always bound by principles set forth in the coalition agreement. Müntefering's and Stoiber's reminders that policy will need to be jointly determined smacks of "tautology", write the editors. But Chancellor Merkel will need to have the power of settling conflicts when they inevitably arise. "There are going to be challenges that, for the good of the country, require a quick and decisive decision," the editors argue. "Who's going to make those decisions, if not the chancellor?"

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung tries to allay concerns that the in-coming coalition will be weak and unstable. True, the government may not accomplish much more than did the outgoing Red-Green coalition. But, the paper points out, "that probably won't be so bad." Indeed, Schröder's government had already started most of the reforms that Germany's ailing economy needs. The grand coalition won't be at a standstill, the editors argue; it will just have to drop most of the "radical cuts that the Christian Democrats propagandized on the campaign trail." Ultimately, much will rest on the upcoming talks on the final coalition program. But the editors see an opportunity: "This coalition, which represents 70 percent of the voter's wishes, has earned a fair shot. The responsibility to realize this potential rests with Merkel, Stoiber, Müntefering, and still a bit with Schröder."

The Berliner Zeitung has a more pessimistic view. The editors anticipate a lot of dissent within the party ranks. "The strongest opposition to the coalition is likely to emerge from within it," the editors opine. And the constitutional provision that grants decisive political authority to the chancellor is "on the one hand entirely clear, and on the other hand, absolutely irrelevant." The editorial argues the chancellor's actual authority derives not from the constitution, but from the strength of his mandate; and it could hardly be clearer that Merkel lacks a strong mandate, as evidenced by the doubts emitting from both Müntefering and her conservative ally Stoiber. The editors conclude: "Chancellor Merkel's problem won't consist in the difficulty of realizing the deluge of policies she imagined, but rather in the difficulty of realizing any policies at all."