2
EDITOR’S NOTE Liebe Leserinnen und Leser, As the world is becoming ever more turbulent, the significance of the German speaking world in resolving the multitude of issues we face cannot be understated. In the coming years the German-speaking community will have to step up and play a major role in resolving political, social and economic issues - both on a domestic and international level. Perhaps now more than ever it is essential to discuss, analyse and, above all, critique the position of the German speaking world, our main motive in creating the latest volume of Politik:Perspektive. This volume tackles some of the most relevant issues within civilisation today, including societal unity, the necessary transition towards an environmentally responsible Weltpolitik, as well as the future outlook for democracy in Germany. Many thanks to the German department for their support, the writers for their insightful contributions, and to you for taking the time to engage with what we have genuinely enjoyed creating. Harry & Oli
CONTENTS Editor’s Note
02 05
The Outsiders of the Outsiders
08
Austria’s Gone Green: Is Austria’s new coalition government a model the rest of Europe should follow?
12
Ultras, Protest and Tradition: Are the rights of football fans in Germany under threat?
04
Goodbye, Angela: The end of the road
06
Fridays for Future: Mobilising the Solution to the Climate Emergency? for the CDU?
10
Fragmentation in the Weimar Republic: A cautionary tale for modern democracy?
14
The Ever Present Berlin Wall:
3
TRAVIS SIMPSON
GOODBYE, ANGELA:
4
THE END OF THE ROAD FOR THE CDU?
It is quite hard to believe that one woman has presided over one of the biggest European powers for so many years; such sustained political success in a functioning democratic system is what other politicians can only dream of. After 15 years of Christian Democratic Union (CDU) rule, is Germany set for change at the next election? Any party who has been governing for such a long time has a large target on their back at any election. Though this effect will be somewhat dulled due to the presence of coalition partners throughout their time in government, they can and will be held accountable for everything that dissatisfies the German populous. To name one, the Alternative for German (AfD) place the blame squarely on the shoulders of Angela Merkel and the CDU for her controversial open doors policy in 2015, making links between terrorist attacks in Germany and the CDU’s policy. Whether they are right or wrong, the AfD’s messages have resonated with their voter base, taking right wing voters away from the CDU into the arms of the AfD. If the CDU can shrug these perceived legacies off, they might well rule for yet another term, just as Boris Johnson managed in the 2019 election in Great Britain.
“THE CDU IS UNDERGOING AN IDENTITY CRISIS” It’s no secret that the CDU will have a very different identity by the next election in 2021. Angela Merkel, having previously been described as the de facto leader of Europe, or even the most powerful women in the world, has made it known that she will not be the chancellor after 2021. The ever-present anchor of the CDU will be leaving, creating a leadership vacuum within the CDU which needed to be addressed promptly to help maintain their trustworthy image Merkel has been developing for such a long time. This vacuum had been filled by Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, widely seen as Merkel reincarnate, until she resigned because of the backlash her party faced from working with the AfD to elect a liberal candidate, Thomas Kemmerich, as minister president of Thuringia. This put the spotlight on the internally fractured nature of the CDU, with a centrist candidate not being able to control the party, and now other, more right-wing candidates such as Friedrich Merz looking to take over the leadership. After so many years of being in government, the CDU is undergoing an identity crisis. It is as good as guaranteed that other political parties will exploit the divisions within the party, as well as the relative lack of experience of the eventual leader for their own gain. If they can stop centrist voters from moving to the
ever more popular Green party and convince the more rightwing voters to not defect to the AfD, then they have a very good chance of once again retaining power. If they, however, become too preoccupied to make sure the transition to the post Merkel era is a smooth one, then perhaps Germany will be heading into some of the most politically turbulent times without the CDU at the helm. Whether Merkel will see out the end of her term up until 2021 is also questionable. If one of her political rivals is elected leader, it is unlikely that she would be able to hang on. Should this be the case, then the CDU’s coalition with the Social Democratic Party (SPD) is at risk as the SPD want Merkel to finish her term before leaving office. If Merkel leaves early and the coalition breaks, then Germany could be expecting an early election. After winning the Hamburg state elections and seeing the CDU’s support at an historic low, the SPD will no doubt be seeking to seize this opportunity and do as much damage possible to their current partners. Should a right-wing candidate such as Merz become the CDU leader, then we could see a battle of the centre-left and right between the SPD and CDU respectively.
FLORIAN READ
THE OUTSIDERS OF THE OUTSIDERS
It is well known amongst anyone with an interest in contemporary German society that inequalities exist between the areas of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) and the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). These differences include less prosperity for East German businesses, a lack of recognition for educational qualifications achieved in the GDR, lower average wages for East German citizens, a smaller average pension for elderly citizens, higher levels of unemployment; the list goes on. In a country with the most powerful economy in Europe, it is difficult to comprehend that such differences exist. Despite this, East German society has suffered - no more so than the rural communities. First and foremost, it must be highlighted that since 1990 there have been vast material improvements in all areas of East German society. These include an ever-improving average wage, a wider variety of job prospects in a free-market economy and heavily-financed infrastructure. It is also very difficult to disagree with the fact that post-GDR freedom of speech and expression of opinion has improved the livelihoods of East Germans. But are these changes enough to counter-act the personal losses that East Germans have had to face? How do you make up for the disappearance of your own country and, more importantly, your own identity? Understanding the history of the unification process is crucial when looking at the deep-rooted issues that exist in East Germany. During the first years of unification, the transition from a socialist command to a capitalist free-trade economy was one of the biggest challenges the German government faced. However, the policies introduced by the West German politicians initially caused widespread anger and dissatisfaction amongst East Germans, which has continued for 30 years and counting. Much of the resentment stemmed from the destructive Treuhandanstalt, which was active from 1990 until 1994. The role of this disastrous agency was to introduce a capitalist economic system into the neue Bundesländer. Instead of allowing the East German companies a chance to integrate themselves into the capitalist system, many were shut down or sold to West German investors at a minimal price, despite numerous businesses remaining fully operational and profitable. By 1994, the Treuhandanstalt had sold or privatised 14,000 East German businesses, with widespread unemployment meaning that two-thirds of East Germans no longer held the same job that they had four years previously. Most East Germans felt that they were outsiders in a unified Germany as their identity and role in society was being unwillingly ripped away from them. Protests and strikes at the beginning of the 1990s demonstrated the extent of discontent as unemployment levels and the closure of many industries tore down the foundations of many rural communities. The most famous example was the hunger strike at a potash mine in the village of Bischofferode in 1993, which lasted over a year and attracted worldwide media attention. It is clear to see that the Treuhandanstalt did not live up to its name as the ‘Trust Agency’ amongst East Germans. Nonetheless, the impact on rural East Germans
5
in particular was catastrophic, as many raw material and agricultural industries underwent a modernising process. In Mecklenburg-Vorpommen, for example, 86% of agricultural employees were made redundant between 1989 and 1995. Despite these striking figures, it was the social impact caused by the dismantling of the East German economy which pushed the wedge between the rural East and West even deeper. The workplace had huge benefits for rural communities in the GDR. It provided a place for social relations and support networks, which were crucial for the tight-knit and geographically-isolated rural societies. Communal kitchens providing free meals at the work place served as an essential space for socialising and building connections throughout the community. Regular excursions and activities were also organised by the Kollektiv (a smaller, local unit of the GDR’s national Trade Union Freier Deutsche Gewerkschaftsbund). The workplace in
“EAST GERMANS FACE PROBLEMS WHICH SHOULD NOT EXIST 30 YEARS AFTER UNIFICATION” the socialist state was central to the well-being and emotional support of rural communities, with it often being described as a family by many rural East Germans. A focus on the individual and privatisation of the workplace in capitalist Germany took away a central part of rural East German livelihood and identity, which has not returned since. It has been a great struggle for these people to find a satisfactory alternative in a post-socialist society. Many rural East Germans retired at an early age over the course of the 1990s as they no longer saw a role for themselves in a unified Germany, which started the process of retracting themselves away from a capitalist society. After unification and the dismantling of their economy, jobs and social life, rural East Germans deserve more respect and attention. Their discontent in present-day Germany is understandable, once the context is understood. Time is often the healer during transitions between different social systems, with gradual improvements and integration, including generations of post-GDR citizens. However, the fact that inequalities still exist today shows the significance of understanding the transition process and its devastating effect in rural areas of the former GDR. East Germans had to face huge problems which should not continue to exist 30 years after unification. You only need to look at the rise of the AfD in the East German Bundesländer to see how these people are venting their anger at their position in a unified Germany.
CLAUDIA WHITEROW
6
FRIDAYS FUTURE:
It’s no secret that the climate change is currently spinning out of control, with evidence emerging on a daily basis that our environment is deteriorating. Years of burning coal and fossil fuels to power our lifestyles has finally caught up with the planet and, as a result, today’s young adults are facing a bleak future. Although coal has been used for thousands of years as a source of energy, the Industrial Revolution marked a turning point for the future of the climate as coal became the primary source of energy, relied upon to power factories and machinery. Thus, in just under 300 years, we have brought the planet to breaking point, with scientists predicting that unless drastic change is taken in the next twelve years, the human population will increasingly face famine and drought as well as an increase in natural disasters such as forest fires and floods. The clearest of examples of how dire the situation is are the bush fires that have been burning in Australia since early September, resulting in the loss of more than 6.3 million hectares of land and the death of more than a billion animals. More than that though, these fires have highlighted both the increasing urgency of the situation we are facing with the impending climate crisis, and how it much it can and will affect human life, with at least 30 people losing their lives and more than 2,000 losing their homes. It’s clear that a sustainable solution is needed, but with business and governments around the world continuing to invest in fossil fuel projects, it is not obvious how the 2015 Paris agreement, which would limit the increase in average global temperature to 1.5 degrees, is going to be honoured. Even with the Green movement generated by personalities such as Greta Thunberg, it must be the responsibility of everyone to take action to help save the planet and, perhaps even more importantly, it is the responsibility of the general public to hold their respective governments accountable in this regard. The movement Thunberg has started, often referred to as ‘Fridays for Future’, has grown rapidly in the past two years. In the strike on the 15 March 2019, 1.6 million students, teachers and other protestors in over 110 countries walked out of their schools to protest about the lack of action on climate change. In Germany there were more than 200 demonstrations, demanding an increase in tax per tonne of CO2 emitted, 100% renewable energy by 2035 and the abo-
lition of fossil-fuel subsidies by the end of decade. Although almost none of their demands have been met, the movement in Germany has enjoyed substantial success and media attention, with its size making it impossible to ignore. The fact that Fridays for Future is not a legitimate legal organisation, but rather a group of normal people with similar views, has not hindered its efforts or successes. Their use of social media in writing open letters, raising awareness and gaining support has been extremely successful, with the organisation receiving more than €300,000 in donations and successfully setting up a fund to ensure that legal aid can be provided for those striking. Obtaining financial aid for strikers protects the future of the movement, particularly as the rapid growth of participants has encouraged cities such as Mannheim to introduce fines in order to prevent students from striking. The overwhelming support for anyone who would have to pay these fines caused the city of Mannheim to retract these plans, thereby demonstrating the power and influence of the movement. And their success is not limited to students. Across Germany movements such as Parents for Future, Oldies for Future and Farmers for Future have appeared, determined to challenge the idea that only young people care about the environment. One grandparent, Klaus von Eichhorn, who is encouraging ‘Oldies for Future’, has stated his support on the grounds that he doesn’t want to be responsible for the destruction of the planet by doing nothing. He also fears having to tell his grandchildren that he could have prevented it but chose not to. Furthermore, some major politicians have made an effort to meet those protesting to discuss the importance of protecting the planet, with the President Frank-Walter Steinmeier travelling to schools in northern Germany to chat with students taking part. Ironically, he has been criticised for choosing to travel by private jet - despite the train from Berlin only taking around 3 hours. Despite the seemingly unstoppable nature of Fridays for Future, how much of a difference has it actually made? So far almost none of the demands have been met, and we are far from ending fossil fuel subsidies, with Germany being
FOR
7
MOBILISING THE SOLUTION TO THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY?
one of five EU countries still looking to invest in new fossil fuel projects. Moreover, the new climate package introduced and passed by the government is being criticised by climate protestors for it is not doing enough to fight against climate change, one of the main causes of which being the fragile coalition in power in Germany in 2020. The CDU and SPD have struggled to agree on how far climate legislation should stretch, hindered by increasing tensions due to pressure from the large and influential German car industry. Famous for its cars, it’s unsurprising that German motorists have banded together to form ‘Fridays for Horsepower’. Although the official Facebook groups has 540,000 members, less than half of the Fridays for Future marches, these protestors are being taken more seriously than climate protesters based on their age. Their ability to vote and role in the economy make them more of a threat to stability in Germany and thus more of a priority for the government. This is despite the fact that many have little objection to living in a greener society, but instead resent the criticism from younger generations and the interference of the authorities in their daily lives. Issues with the movement do not end there. The majority of politicians are skeptical and actively discourage school strikes, arguing that climate change is an issue for professionals, despite more than 20,000 scientists backing the movement. Even President Steinmeier, who flew to discuss climate change with strikers, suggested they take action on weekends, which would directly contradict the point of the strikes. Famous for being an eco-friendly country, the resistance to complying to the demands might be because of the steps Germany has already taken. The so-called Energiewende has been in effect since 2010, with Germany constantly investing in exploring new renewable energy sources and pledging to implement changes such as removing all nuclear power stations by 2022. Therefore, some critics may see the strikes as a protest from the younger generation, who lack understanding of the intricacies and difficulties in changing laws with regard to climate change. The consequent reluctance of many leading politicians to comply with the strikes suggests the movement could struggle to gain long-term success.
Despite these obstacles, it is clear that Fridays for Future is not going to go away. Every day more and more people are suffering the damaging effects of climate change, losing their homes, jobs and lives, while governments seem increasingly reluctant to listen to the protesters. But the alarming frequency of and increase in climate related catastrophes is legitimising and normalising the stance of the generation of young people fighting for their future. The urgency of the situation is becoming undeniable and it is therefore surely only a matter of time before governments are forced to act. When that happens, Fridays for Future will be at the forefront of the fight.
OLIVER LAWRIE
8
AUSTRIA’S GONE GREEN:
Is Austria’s new coalition government a model the rest of Europe should follow?
Picture this. You wake up in your luxurious apartment near to the Chancellery in Vienna (I should be so lucky), it’s New Year’s Day and you turn on the news to see that your political representatives have pulled their fingers out and formed a coalition government, a whole 3 months after the election itself. You stare at your television in amazement, unsure if you are still reeling from last night’s New Year’s celebrations, or dumbfounded at the fact that two politically antithetical parties, the Conservative People’s Party (ÖVP) and the Greens, have found enough common ground to the point where they are ready to work together in government for the next 5 years. We know we live in politically volatile times. But still, a Green party being elected to government? Surely not… Though surprising, this isn’t unheard of. Certain Green parties across Europe, most notably in the 90s, have made up parts of governments, highlighted by the Latvian Green party supplying the country’s prime minister in 2004. However, in more modern times, despite the overall green movement, it is very rare to see the Green party with profound influence within a government like we will may well see in Austria over the coming years. On the face of it, it would seem that this is a triumph for all in Austria and Europe alike. By virtue of the coalition being comprised of two parties at opposite ends of the political spectrum, the government will be representative of a much broader cross section of society and its political beliefs, one of the key ideals of any functioning democracy. Alongside this, core campaign pledges, which are widely expected to be honoured throughout the programme, have been made to increase transparency; and therefore accountability. This will be mutually beneficial for the image of Austrian politics, especially considering the backdrop from which this election was called, the far-right Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) and previous coalition partner to the ÖVP being embroiled in a corruption scandal. This would go a long way to restoring trust in Austrian politics, something other European states could definitely do with right now. In a world where political environments are becoming ever more toxic and divisive (look at the protests in Hong Kong, the worker strikes in France or the EU referendum debate in the UK), the fact that two clear political opponents have sat down, compromised and worked to find common ground between their sincerely held differences, most importantly in a civil and democratic manner, is a refreshing reminder that some politicians do have the ability to cooperate for the good of the people they represent. You would be
9
forgiven for thinking that this was not in the remit of a politician given the current state of affairs we find ourselves in. Could, or more poignantly should, other European countries model themselves on this Austrian government? This new green and black coalition has a golden opportunity to be a guiding light for other European nations to follow - most notably in environmental legislation, for progressive social policy and for democratic stability. Austria has the chance to showcase just how a democracy can listen to the demands of different strata of society, whilst meaningfully tackling the biggest issues they face as a country. Regardless of if you agree with the supposed democratic wishes of the Austrian people (the desire for stricter immigration policy, for example), they will hopefully be going about governing in a fairer, more transparent and, I would argue, more democratic way. Is it a knee-jerk reaction from the FPÖ corruption scandal in May 2019? Potentially. Does that mean it should not be used an example for what progressive western democracy should be aiming for in an increasingly isolationist and polarised world? Of course not. The coalition’s ability to respond effectively to one the most universal threats to society in the so-called climate crisis, especially considering the green movement that has boomed over the last few years, could dictate Austria’s role within Europe in the coming years. With a population of near on 9 million people, Austria’s proposed environmentally conscientious infrastructure investments and legislature will be easier and cheaper to implement. Equally, should a narrative be created that Austria was the driving force behind Europe’s (successful) fight against global warming, the potential political capital they could acquire would give them political authority, the likes of which is usually only enjoyed by the larger European Powers. Though it sounds unimportant, think of the international notoriety of the gilets jaunes movement and subsequent damage dealt to Emmanuel Macron’s political image. Any similar public backlash to societal reforms will be easier to contain in Austria due to its relatively small population, key to making environmental reform appealing and a secure political choice in the eyes of future European governments. The fact the ÖVP needs to maintain fiscal responsibility to maintain grass-root support should help in hindering the notion that certain western countries can’t afford to invest the amounts required to make meaningful environmental change due to the economic damage that would cause. As Austria’s chancellery, controlled by the ÖVP, will be more insistent balancing the books than if there were to be a majority Green government.
Of course, this is analysis is being made through an optimistic, best case scenario lens, and that is not how the real world works, unfortunately. Both sides have acknowledged that they have given way in certain areas to form this coalition, meaning that some of the hard-right policies of the ÖVP will still be put to parliamentarians, including their isolationist immigration policy. Equally, due to the disparity in vote share between the two governing parties, the ÖVP control many more ministries than the Greens, and consequently have more of a say in what the government ends up doing. An example; the greens control the ministry for transport, and can push for large investments and infrastructure projects, but the ÖVP control the treasury, meaning anything too fiscally flamboyant will most likely be blocked by the finance minister, or at the very least delayed and reworked to suit the ÖVPs political needs. Equally, there are already countries from which we could all model ourselves on, most notably in Scandinavia, but their influence hasn’t impacted Europe up to now to any noteworthy extent. Austria finds itself at a cross roads. There is an amazing opportunity to lead the way in reasserting and maintaining a level democratic integrity that Europe in losing, whilst recognising and acting upon the biggest threats we face in a responsible and progressive manner. Alternatively, the ÖVP could decide to play political games with the coalition to the point where not enough action is taken to warrant it becoming anything to envy. Either way, at least things are moving in the right direction.
“THIS NEW GREEN AND BLACK COALITION HAS A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO BE A GUIDING LIGHT FOR OTHER EUROPEAN NATIONS TO FOLLOW”
EMMA DELGADO
10
FRAGMENTAT WEIMAR REP
The Weimar Republic was the ultimate stress test of representative democracy in the face of nationalism, racism, violence and populism – and it failed. With modern democracies becoming accustomed to similar pressures, the Weimar period needs to be scrutinised to understand pressing questions about the fragility of our own democracies. The Weimar Constitution aided the demise of its own democracy. With no national vote threshold for parties to enter Parliament, and only 60,000 votes equating to one seat, splinter parties were given an outsized role in politics. Coalitions, supposedly to build consensus, promoted little collaboration between the left and right, and unstable governments formed, which partly led to the rise of the National Socialists. Today, Germany’s constitution has incorporated a ‘five percent hurdle’ whereby any party that does not receive five percent of the national vote share (or three directly elected seats by ‘First Past the Post’) cannot gain a seat. This, coupled with the Mixed-Proportional electoral system that Germany now uses, should prevent small parties becoming overly influential and fragmenting the system. The authors of the modern German Constitution, traumatised by the experience of 1933, fortified the state’s institutions against threats which would undermine the democratic order. This has slightly diminished the right-wing threat of the Alternative for Germany (AfD). The party has been undercut by external and internal factors, such as the internal security agency investigation into the party in January 2019. The modern state is fighting back against this fragmentation and the constitution has held resolute, for now. In reality, with the rise of more extreme parties, this ‘five percent’ has been futile in preventing political fragmentation transpiring, and the still largely proportional system has delivered incoherent electoral majorities. As a consequence, peripheral groups have been able to
form and capitalise on the ever-growing salience of populism. In Germany, the rise of the AfD has served to disrupt the current political establishment, with the inclusion of this party into Parliament further fragmenting the political landscape in Germany. This lack of cohesion and fragmentation is regularly visible, for example when it took party leaders 171 days to form a new government after the 2017 General Election, and all this in a political system meant to induce cooperation. The AfD are continually taking advantage of this political situation and using it as a crowbar to propagate division, using mass media to intensify the spread of populist sentiment. Although this is further fracturing the system, this is not the main concern; new parties forming is the reason for democracy, for citizens to have a free set of choices for when they go to vote. Perhaps more concerning is that these ideas are coming at the cost of democratic collaboration; current rhetoric would not necessarily look out of place in Weimar Germany. Their attacks on Islam go beyond what many would argue as reasonable critique, using controversial language to alienate sections of the country. The demonisation of opponents further alienates groups from exercising their democratic right, eroding representative democracy and mirroring many facets of the Weimar Republic’s downfall. In Weimar, the breakdown of democracy began before the National Socialist Party became a significant force. It culminated in the assassination of Foreign Minister Walther Rathenau in 1922, after having been subjected to an intense, anti-Semitic campaign of hatred from the nationalist right. Contrary to long-held beliefs, Germany is not immune to far-right politics and lessons from Weimar have not necessarily been learnt as fully as many had hoped. Of course, I am not suggesting that modern Germany is heading for a fascist state, and nor would I want to, but with similarities emerging between the rhetoric and sometimes violent actions of then and now, we must be cautious.
11
TION IN THE PUBLIC:
A CAUTIONARY TALE FOR MODERN DEMOCRACY?
This potential for fragmentation makes the system very fragile, exacerbated by the proportional representation imbedded within the German political system. Even in a country like the United Kingdom, which uses a majority electoral system, there is still concern for the erosion of cohesive government. The 2010 election brought about the first peacetime Coalition, and the anti-establishment and isolationist narratives surrounding the 2016 Brexit vote, perhaps show that UK is heading towards an increasingly fragmented political system. Even these majoritarian electoral systems, supposedly more resilient than proportional systems, are becoming more vulnerable. Unlike the Weimar Republic, which had Republicans who strongly believed in the parliamentary system, in ‘Brexit Britain’ few rally wholeheartedly for the current order. Contempt for parliament has become the public’s default setting, something which is potentially more threatening to our ‘consensus politics’ than first thought. If Weimar has taught us anything, it is that fragmentation is dangerous in a democracy built on consensus and we must not be ignorant to the fact that majoritarian systems aren’t immune to instability. Of course, the Weimar Republic was vulnerable in more ways than just the political system itself. The inflation of the 1930s was unprecedented and persuaded people to believe that any regime must be better than the current one. We are also acutely aware of the effect of economic downturns in the modern day, and the impact that has on the stability of a political system. The 2008 crisis led to inflationary spirals and depressions throughout Europe, challenging modern-day democracies to come up with a workable, affordable solution. Furthermore, the constitution allowed for the dissolution of Parliament prematurely when the law did not require it, which presented huge risks, as it gave some players an advantage and was interpreted as an admission that democracy had failed before it had. This issue is particularly prominent in Britain today, where dissolution is used for political point scoring,
whilst showing the vulnerability of the system and creating a short-term fix to fragmentation. These additional factors in Weimar only exacerbated the already present sentiment of the population; they did not create it. Despite the near-perfection of the carefully crafted Constitution, it would become an unpredictable weapon in the fight against democracy. The worry is that unpredictable ‘democratic’ events, as can be seen nowadays, are influencing today’s politics as much as they were then, creating the environment in which the consequence of previous fragmentation can be repeated. Angela Merkel has claimed that “every generation must once again struggle for democracy”. Looking at the lessons from Weimar and the similarities with today, we must not be complacent that this holds no truth. The nationalist rhetoric, the violent language and the promise of change are all too familiar for those who have studied Weimar Germany. Is Germany going to become a fascist state in the future? Nobody can know. What we do know is that Weimar has shown how a loss of respect for democracy can quickly end in catastrophe. It is important that we heed the lessons from Weimar and not take this ‘trust’ we have for democracy for granted. A century ago in Germany, the people fell out of love with the system, with terrible consequences. Today we seem to be doing the same, all without fully grasping just what could be at stake if we do.
HARRY NELLIS
12
ULTRAS, PROTEST AND TRADITION Are the rights of football fans in Germany under threat?
13
Germany has long been a destination renowned for its impressive football fan experience, thanks largely to its fantastic football scene and rich variety of fan cultures. Many UK-based football fans seeking a ‘purer’ version of the beautiful game will head to Germany for this reason alone. Football in Germany offers many things which are only recognisable to fans of a certain generation in the UK, with lively atmospheres, beer on the terraces and safe standing. These factors all help to play a key role in attracting people from many diverse backgrounds and walks of life. Intrinsically linked to the complexity and rich variety within the German football scene are the ultras, groups of staunch supporters who actively and passionately back their side no matter what. For ultras, supporting their team is not a choice, but rather a way of life. This support manifests itself in the form of fan marches, choreographed displays, the use of flares as well as the creation of clever banners which convey everything from messages of support to those of pride or distaste. These fan groups have recently been a central talking point in Germany and across the sporting world due to their sustained and widespread protests against Dietmar Hopp, the billionaire co-founder of software company SAP, and the largely critical reaction to these protests. As a successful entrepreneur, Hopp has done a lot of good for his local region, investing large sums in medicine, education and charitable causes. He also bankrolled the rise of his local village side Hoffenheim from the depths of German football up to the top division, the Bundesliga. In doing so, Hopp has essentially become the embodiment of key issues which the ultras position themselves against: the modernisation and commercialisation of football. Hoffenheim is one of three exceptions to the 50+1 rule in Germany, whereby fans own the majority of a club. Because Hopp continuously invested in the club for at least 20 years, he was ruled as fit to own an overall majority. This move in itself was extremely problematic and still threatens to undermine the 50+1 structure, which so brilliantly protects fans’ opinions and fan-led football in Germany. Protests were staged by the ultras of numerous clubs in response to a DFB ruling in late February which saw Borussia Dortmund fans collectively banned from supporting their club in Hoffenheim for the next two seasons. This ruling transpired after Dortmund fans consistently produced banners criticising Hopp and came despite previous assurances from the DFB’s president in 2017 which ruled out a collective ban of supporters. This threatens the ability of the ultras and fans in general to comment on societal issues in their displays: their opinions are being censored. The united response from a number of ultra groups has been particularly unforgiving, with banners unfurled by fans of Augsburg, Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund and Darmstadt - to name just a few. At the match between Hoffenheim and Bayern Munich on the aforementioned weekend, there were bizarre scenes as the referee temporarily postponed the game. This was due to Bayern fans unveiling an insulting banner aimed at Hopp, containing the message du Hurensohn, or ‘you son of a whore’. When the players came back out onto the pitch, they saw out the last 13 minutes of the game passing it amongst themselves. Afterwards, both sets of players joined Hopp and the Bayern chief executive on the pitch to applaud the Hoffenheim fans in a show of solidarity.
Granted, the use of the term Hurensohn is problematic. Despite the fact that it is routinely mentioned in songs, it is inherently aggressive in nature and if anything has negative connotations towards Hopp’s mother. Eintracht Frankfurt ultras later countered this misjudged word choice by using the phrase du Sohn einer Mutter in their protest banner – you son of a mother. Protests elsewhere also placed Hopp within the crosshairs of a gun, a move which certainly could have been judged better by those who used it. In rather lucid terms, Union Berlin ultras ‘Hammer Hearts 04’ explained the use of the motif as a representation of “free opinion in the crosshairs”. Clearly, these ultras feel pushed to the point at which their freedom of expression is threatened in such a way that they deem an action like this as the only appropriate response. This statement doesn’t really justify the use of the crosshairs, however. It is therefore vital that the discourse on this issue positions the protests against Hopp within the wider timeline of events in German football. We must ask ourselves, why did the DFB fail to condemn the racist slurs directed at Hertha Berlin’s Jordan Torunarigha last month? Why was there no stoppage in play then, and why did the players not feel like having a kick about in solidarity with a player who had been racially abused? There is no doubting that the ultras of many clubs did overstep the line by placing Hopp in the crosshairs of a gun. Although this drew attention to the issue, there could have been better ways to convey the ultra’s grievances. However, it seems somewhat ironic that the DFB continues to crack down on ultras for their protests against the commercialisation of football, whilst seemingly failing to deal with active manifestations of racism. Perhaps the close link between Hopp’s company SAP and the DFB as a ‘premium partner’ may have something to do with this extreme reaction on the part of the footballing authorities. Whilst ultras are often portrayed negatively in the mainstream media and handed heavy punishments for their actions by the DFB, many groups also play a much more nuanced and positive role in their local communities. Bayern’s ultras, specifically the group Schickeria, have been an important force in fighting homophobia, anti-Semitism and racism through their actions. In their displays, they have repeatedly showed support for refugee rights, holocaust remembrance and NGOs rescuing migrants at sea. Although it would be problematic to claim that the ultras and their passionate support never take it too far, and wrong to excuse their actions on the basis of their political positioning, it is important to view these individual groups in a more coherent manner, rather than in the context of the narrow and mostly-negative images portrayed in the mainstream media. In doing so, it is possible to properly understand the causal factors behind the actions of many ultras in their protest against the commercialisation of football. This does not mean that the ultras’ actions are in no way problematic, but rather highlights a need for a more nuanced understanding of their role within German football, as well as their fight against the modernisation and commercialisation of the game. It will be interesting to see how the situation will develop from this point. The question remains: are the rights of football fans in Germany under threat?
LOUISA POLACK
THE EVER PRESENT BERLIN WALL
A recent photograph taken of Berlin by the European Space Agency astronaut Andre Kuipers shows a distinction between how the city is lit in the East and West at night. This prompted me to question whether divisions are still visible in Germany, over 30 years on from the fall of the Berlin Wall. Kuipers’ photograph, taken in 2012 from the International Space Station, is similar to a photo taken by Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield in the following year, showing the “East/ West division from orbit.” In both photos, a clear distinction exists between the streets of East and West Berlin, as the lights of West Berlin glow a bright white, with those in the East giving off a mellow orange. This can be put down to a simple difference in the light fixtures used on either side of the city; in the former East Berlin sodium-vapour lamps were installed, whilst officials in West Berlin opted for cheaper, more eco-friendly fluorescent lamps – a reflection on how policies have deviated in the two halves of the city in the past. Yet the street lights of Berlin are not the only forms of physical division which mark and separate East from West. The ghost of the Berlin Wall defines the city, with the position of where the wall once stood marked on the ground. Easy to miss, a double row of cobblestones along public streets and footpaths indicate the city’s physical division into East and West. However, the stark contrast in the photographs taken from space of the city on a clear night shall also soon become a thing of the past. Under current plans, Berlin will have replaced its gas-powered lights with electrical ones by 2020 in an effort to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions of the city. Although Berlin may be erasing one of its physical divides marking East and West, there are still many other East-West divisions visible throughout the city and country. Despite investment in East Germany after reunification, there is a clear socio-economic divide in the country highlighted by the economic conditions experienced by citizens in the East, in comparison to those in the West. In the years following reunification an estimated €1.6 trillion was invested into Eastern Germany by the federal government and private German firms, contributing to an economic upturn in the East. Further, since reunification, the GDP of the East indicates that there has been a 41% increase in economic growth. However, this is not necessarily mirrored in the economic situations of individuals, as East German salaries lag significantly behind those of the West. West German workers earn around 16.9% more than their East German counterparts, according to a recent study by the Hans Böckler Foundation. Despite stable growth, East Germany is currently experiencing a brain drain, as young workers migrate to the West in the pursuit of better wages, with an estimated net migration in 2016 of 250,000 individuals out of the East. This movement not only results in a loss of business for companies in the East, but also a loss of employees, calling the future of some independent companies in East Germany into question.
14
In various interviews East Germans have voiced a sense of disappointment with the federal government. Many feel that politicians overpromised, with the prospect of investment and jobs never materialising, as detailed in an interview which a local businessman, Ulrich Mäbert, gave to the New York Times. This feeds in to the emotional divide between the East and West, with differing levels of patriotism and political ideologies. A division in identity is made obvious when comparing the differences in how Western Germans and East Germans distinguish themselves. As reported by the Financial Times, when asked if they identify primarily as German or East German, 47 per cent of respondents identified, above all else, as East German, with 44 per cent identifying as simply German. In contrast, over 70 per cent of West Germans identified as being primarily German, apparently not feeling such regional allegiance as those in the East. This sentiment of a lack of post-reunification German identity within the East clearly correlates with feelings of disillusionment and betrayal. After reunification, East Germany was put in an unexpected state of shock, as they transitioned from a regime in which the government controlled everything, to a sudden retreat of the state and public services. This perceived feeling of abandonment was further compounded during the 2015-2016 refugee ‘crisis’ in Europe. As Germany opened its borders to around 1 million refugees from countries such as Syria and Iraq, residents of East Germany felt betrayed as “the same state that had left eastern Germans to fend for themselves during the post-1990 collapse” was now opening its borders and pockets for refugees, as Petra Köpping, Social Democratic Party (SPD) Politician and Saxony’s regional government minister for integration, told The Financial Times. This sentiment has been voiced by some sections of the East German population through their voting behaviour. The far-right political group the Alternative for Germany, or AfD, has gained serious ground in eastern Germany after the recent regional elections, finishing second in Saxony to Angel Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party, and second in Brandenburg to the SPD on 1 September. Support for the AfD is growing and is strongest in these working-class regions of the East, reflecting the dissatisfaction that many East Germans have with the current regime and reinforcing the division in political stances between the West and East of reunified Germany. Even thirty years on from the fall of the Berlin Wall and the re-unification of the two German states, divisions between East and West are still prevalent. Whether that is because of the fading and divisive legacies of the Cold War, current societal disparities, or contemporary political discourse, Germany is perhaps not as reunified as one might think.
5 1
GET IN TOUCH FB: Politik Perspektive INSTA: @politikperspektive Twitter: @politik_perspek LinkedIn: Politik Perspektive To access our other volumes, visit: https://issuu.com/politik.perspektive
16
STAFF OLIVER LAWRIE EDITOR AND WRITER
HARRY NELLIS EDITOR AND WRITER
HOWE-YEE LAW DESIGNER
EMMA DELGADO WRITER
FLORIAN READ WRITER
CLAUDIA WHITEROW WRITER
LOUISA POLACK WRITER
TRAVIS SIMPSON WRITER
WANT TO JOIN OUR TEAM? CONTACT US: ON FACEBOOK POLITIK: PERSPEKTIVE