Merkel as Chancellor – third comment to the outcome of German elections

By: Hatto Fischer, Athens

---

To become chancellor with 34% of the vote is not exactly a confident note to start out with but then again Germany has now a grand coalition after the marriage of the two elephants, the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats, took place. You might call it such but it should not be overlooked that together they have only 67% of the vote, enough to be the majority in the lower house but not the two thirds of the vote after which they could potentially alter the constitution, if they so wanted. But that is not the interesting point. Rather it is the mechanism by which the real winner, the FDP shall loose since now delegated again into the role of being a part of the opposition in the lower house of Germany's parliament: 'der Bundestag'.

Equally the other winner, the Left party sees its historic role in the opposition as a confirmation of their course of politics. They declare this Grand Coalition to be exactly what they wanted for they expect to get even stronger thanks to the predictable anti-labor and anti-social course the grand coalition government shall follow. Given predictable discontentment amongst trade unionists, workers and socially excluded with what the Grand Coalition has in store for them, namely nothing, this party expects to gain in strength over the next four years.

However, it has always been the fallacy of the Left that everything must get still worse than already the case before the true turning point in history shall be reached. To the Left there is anyhow no difference between Social Democrats and Christian Democrats just as the Left in America argued before the Presidential election in 2000 that there is no big difference between Gore and Bush to justify the running of Nader as third candidate. To remember Nader helped Bush win the final key state of Florida by a doubtful 150 votes over Gore and where Nader obtained 80 000. It was enough to make a difference. Since 2000 the Left of the United States has paid a sheer endless prize for such lack of differentiation between the two main parties when in fact as anyone can see now it would have made a vast difference if Gore, not Bush would have been president.

Sadly enough the prize for the Left was never high enough even when wishing to be proven right in theory, but wrong in practice. As last resort to their lack of political analysis, they argue all politicians act as if they all belong to one and the same party due to the system being stronger than any particular political force. It negates the possibility of making a difference when assuming political responsibilities. But while there is in Germany this political impulse from an authentic left to ensure social justice prevails and not only the dogmatic lessons of free liberalism the political implementation thereof is squandered over and again. The Greens opted in the past seven years for being in government rather than in opposition and are paying now for that a political prize, but lets face it after the most recent election outcome the Left in Germany had potentially the majority. If Social Democrats, Greens and Left would have formed together a coalition to support the next government, then a different republic would have faced together market forces.

Several reasons spoke against such a coalition on the Left. Following the political logic of the negation of negation, something Hegel systematized to ensure identity with the state was not confused with personal identity insofar it means drawing the border against others who are not German, Schroeder and the SPD ruled out any coalition with the Left party. Similar Gysi and Lafontaine had nothing but opposition in mind. Equally the FDP ruled out entering a coalition with the Social Democrats. Whether it is called the opposition of the opposition or not, it means in Germany there is being played out a political game with sharp differences being claimed than what the system allows. All parties fear loosing their identities and yet they cling to the illusion that they will get stronger if they play out this situation as presented to them by the German voter in the election of September 2005. Rather than reform or practical differentiation, they are already positioning themselves for the next federal election. Such pretense of politics but based in reality on a 'wait and see' attitude means that nothingness shall become increasingly the key subject once Merkel has become chancellor. As predicted in my previous comments to the election outcome, the opposition of the opposition will redefine political nothingness insofar as the concept of reform will have under a grand coalition no meaning at all.

It is said that Merkel surprises her opponents by being tougher than they are in playing out such a political game of nothingness. But what is strength if all her opponents are weak? Even Stoiber is not anymore as strong as he was before loosing the last federal election as candidate for the opposition against Schroeder and the Greens. Only if you count true political weakness, meaning honesty and humbleness in, then you have a different kind of strength, something Willy Brandt had but not Helmut Kohl. Also nothingness is being already reflected upon in German newspapers since no one seems to know what Merkel wants aside from power. She managed to get at least 34% of the vote on the basis of her key slogan that she wants to serve Germany. Therefore for want of a better word there will play much more a 'mission' a role than what current analysts will want to believe even though Bush with his Christian faith has set already an example of how religious allegories can be used to mask real political motives.

So what to expect from the first female chancellor with a family background in which her own father distance himself from his daughter even though the kind of upbringing often cited as being decisive for Merkel came about thanks to him? As priest he went for the Protestant church to East Germany still then under Communist rule. There Merkel grow up by experiencing how an opposition formed itself under the cover of religion or rather she saw how politics could be played out differently under the protection of the church facing a totalitarian state. As this has tradition in Germany it is worthwhile to pay attention to Merkel's immediate knowledge on how politics can be masked by a Zeitgeist borrowing from the preacher's ability to talk to both people and powerful people as key mediator and influential voice in keeping faith in the all powerful God.

How significant a Protestant preacher's house is, that can be gauged by the thesis of Robert Minder who declared that to be the core cell of German literature. Many writers and as it appears now politicians come from such a background since schooled at an early age not to trust anyone but to be able to speak and to listen to everybody. Robert Minder points out that in an otherwise segregated society with the upper class not talking to the lower class, it was only that in the house of the preacher that all kinds of languages and voices could be heard and therefore the best school for German poets and writers.

In times of East Germany as separate state under Communist and therefore atheist rule the best training ground for future politicians of reunited Germany has been the school for rhetoric in East Berlin. It was linked to the Protestant church. Also it should not be forgotten that someone like Antje Vollmer who came from the West was equally schooled in a similar way by what Max Weber described already at the beginning of the 20th century as the 'Protestant spirit'.

There are certain traits that come with such a background and spirit, such as high intelligence but very low capacity in emotional response to the needs of people for a happy life. The compromises of the religious groups in a state tending to over dominate everything else lead them to look more for bitter soberness rather than a happy life. Lutheran churches did not follow the sensuous Catholic churches with their heavy decorations but by opting for sober white walls as interiors they overlooked the secret weapon of the Catholic Church, namely a very pleasure orientated reconciliation of the spirit with the body. No wonder then that journalists remark how rarely Merkel can smile for she can hardly be won over to the free going and happy style to face a world she deeply mistrusts. Indeed one of the key motivations for Merkel seems to be according to some newspaper reports, so also the Sueddeutsche on 10.10.2005, that she mistrusts everyone. It is said that she relies more on control than on trusting loyalty.

Interestingly enough this leads to another German characteristic best described as being engaged in constant networking independent from ideology. As if a spider spinning ever wider the net, such networking should not be confused with the term used widely on the Internet and as essence of European project partnership. Rather the German term means exclusiveness and secretiveness with people in it informed on a highly selective manner and without the others of the network knowing it. The key player of such a network has all the power to distribute information and to play the anonymous network out against any individual member to ensure conformity and full loyalty to the leader of the network.

As a matter of fact the proper term given to such networking in which Germans are masters in, even if to the point of self-isolation in economics and world affairs, is 'entanglement'. The professor for Science of Religion Klaus Heinrich called it the humane form of keeping everyone together without inflicting too much damage on each other. He preferred that solution rather than opting for the grand solution orrevolution since the latter would have only terrible consequences. By admission it means never to say in any absolute manner 'no' but also never 'yes' banning thereby clarity even when it comes to upholding human rights.

Certainly networking of this kind misses out on a lot of things going on in life elsewhere nor does it rest on any positive affirmation of life. Consequently such entanglement can only reproduce itself in 'nothingness' masking highly ambivalent motives with no one really knowing in which direction the country should develop. In the soberness of everyday such politics of nothingness reproducing itself through further entanglement means not reform but muddling through while letting the net of entanglement grow from year to year till it becomes like those huge drag nets sweeping clean of all signs of life the ocean floor. It ends up being nothing more but an illegal practice. For it will have wiped out by then any 'loyal opposition' and therefore the democratic state of affairs will succumb to the rule of necessity for lack of any political will to shape the future positively, creatively and as open-ended learning process within the marks of political consistency.

Interestingly enough the editorial comment in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung predicts that one position of Merkel shall brand her politics: the wish to combine the freedom of the individual with globalization. Not sure how she will transcend the national framework of German politics having become more self assertive under Chancellor Schroeder but her intention is quite clear. By giving apparently back the freedom to the individual he seems to have lost by a national protective scheme, he will also be held responsible for everything that might go wrong under globalization. As if equal chances prevail for success and failure at the individual level, Merkel will start protecting the political class from being held responsible in future for anything from unemployment to wrong decisions in education, research, agriculture, foreign affairs and especially economic matter. By holding the individual responsible as if a sign of giving him all the freedom, Merkel's politics will be a clear cut neoliberal ideological answer to what the voters had given the political parties as clearest message, namely that none of them alone can be trusted to come through with such political solutions that would benefit all and not damage anyone. Now the worst case shall be played out at an illusionary individual level never realized in a German state. Utopian or wishful thinking does prevail all the time and makes itself felt in political thoughts being expressed specially then when voters are asked by opinion pollsters who they would prefer as next chancellor. Nevertheless the question is how will people cope with Merkel being chancellor of a Grand coalition government? The rebounds of mistrust will be tremendous and calls, therefore, for better political analysis be provided than the case up to now in order to anticipate things to come.

Horkheimer, philosopher and director of the famous Frankfurt School, declared that mistrust to be an important Right. This shows what post war Germany had to tell future generations after what had been experienced during Second World War. What then does the Right to Mistrust mean when perceiving political options and solutions not as outcome of a conflict between opposing views but as something still not to be trusted even when being implemented? First of all, there is a fallacy in this insofar perception of reality without trust in the senses is impossible. Secondly, if mistrust has any meaning then in the wish that the people retain a healthy portion of skepticism when listening to what politicians promise them. Thirdly, mistrust expressed in the form of a wish means a practical suggestion that people should not believe politicians blindly but remain 'vigilant' so that no politician misuses his or her power by deceiving them and then misleads them into catastrophe. All this is to say with certainty Merkel's own mistrust has nothing to do with Horkheimer's thesis on how to safeguard freedom of people against misuse of power and everything with Merkel's own upbringing, including formal education and socialization.

In the case of a woman having become politician under Kohl and now chancellor to state that she mistrust others says a lot about her own motives. Freud would say in a hidden complexity of a personality structured towards mistrust there is something like fear to be mislead. She will not be able to do anything but mislead other people whom she does not trust. Trust of people as prime base for politics would mean being able to rely on the information she receives but already during her misguided election campaign the flaws of working only with a tightly knit inner circle of advisors indicated her tendency to isolate herself voluntarily out of fear of ever becoming too open to other ideas, influences and even differently structured advises. The danger of such a disposition is too strengthen still further the already existing hard structures of Germany based on mistrusting people.

By staying on the safe side in mistrusting everyone she shows an inability not only to trust people but to a greater extent she reflects a larger German problem, namely that they are collectively speaking still not to be trusted after what happened in Second World War. As such Merkel epitomizes mistrust as the problem to be faced by the German society and explains why like a magnet she attracts despite the confusing political outcome all the political puzzles to make up the political painting of the day. Typical for such a state of affairs is a powerful image which accompanied the article of the Sueddeutsche Zeitung about Merkel: it is a photo of hers hanging in a blown up size out front of the CDU party house in Berlin with focus on her eyes while in front a double deck Berlin bus passes by with some people in the upper deck. Passing by such eyes supposed to signal a new beginning but ironically it underlines just that message: don't trust what you see if you overlook the disproportionate display of the close-up of her vis a vis ordinary people. The PR photo of Merkel close-up and the montage by the Sueddeutsche combines to underline not a personalized vision will mark German politics in the next four years, but efforts by the state mechanism to gain more eyes than vision. The latter has tradition. The totalitarian slogan has always been that the state should see what the citizens are doing since they cannot be trusted e.g. are lazy when they could work.

To come back to another thesis developed by Horkheimer, he did not question merely the relationship between mistrust and what political position people should take since that would depend upon skepticism having a chance to take root as political tradition in Germany. He was wondering also about the relationship to freedom. Here he says surprisingly enough but logical in terms of his own philosophical thinking turned very political at that point, that 'egoism would destroy freedom'. Only if this is added to the meaning he wants to give to mistrust, then another philosophical foundation to politics can be found. Mistrust is more complicated than what appears at popular level and often misused as slogan when people simply say 'politicians cannot be trusted'. What they mean in reality, and this in a critical reflective sense, is that most of the politicians are egoists and therefore they are in danger of destroying the freedom of others, including the freedom of the people who voted them into office and power. Egoism means just that: not to be interested in other people, including their needs and potentialities to contribute towards the common welfare of everyone.

To return to Merkel, if she is representing a political direction which wishes to combine freedom and globalization, her politics will be a definite fiasco if she fails to recognize that globalisation is the most egoistical force the world has known until now. Indeed the challenge is what answers to give to lumber companies that erode the rain forest of Brazil without regard for the consequences on the environment despite all warnings about climate change affecting increasingly in a negative way conditions of life on this earth.

If Merkel wants unrestrained economic freedom and therefore give more power to the super managers earning more than 1 million Euros a year compared to average yearly salaries of a family with three children not even coming close to 24 000 Euros if lucky, then the discrepancies between the poor and the rich cannot be explained away by stressing individual freedom and the superiority of the free market. State intervention for the sake of the already rich as demonstrated by the Bush administration in the United States leads to even greater disasters and shall burden future generations with more debts than they can handle. As to the advocates of the free market and what reform they would like to see in order to enhance economic growth, they fail to recognize that any real naming of things in politics is outdone by the egoism of those using the global system to serve only their own interests without regard for the other. This then is the meaning of giving the individual the freedom in globalization. Rather than progressing towards real solutions, it means furthering egoism as simple tool by which everyone appears to be convinced. It is the basis for all wrong economic theories relying solely on the self interest of the individual. That has become the cover for the self interest of parties and companies. Any politics that furthers egoism while based on mistrust of people will reinforce negative tendencies already rampant in a world caught between the global war against terrorism and natural catastrophes. It will be an irresponsible act and more so fail in the important sense of not giving political direction to anything since failing to address the issues of the day and of the near future. In view of the experiences the Bush administration made recently when hurricane Katrina swept through New Orleans, the failure of a state to be accountable for the plight of the poor is in reality the outcome of following a convenient ideological adaptation in politics to what the most egoistic forces want nowadays: giving for failures of the system all the blame to the individual while retaining the freedom to continue as one likes regardless of the consequence as long as money is earned without having to be accountable to both nature and society.

more Comments...