Professor, what kind of country has Germany become twenty years after reunification?
Compared to twenty years ago Germany is a totally changed country. The change that took place in 1989 and reunification the following year completely overturned the East of the country. These events improved matters. It is sufficient to bear in mind that all the pensioners in the five Eastern Länder are treated just like citizens in the Western Länder. Welfare is the instrument that has made life better. Former East Germany is a country filled with free and wealthy people. Infrastructure has however played an important role. It is true that Germany’s economic power is developed along the South-Western front. Roads and railways have been built or modernised in the Eastern regions and this has encouraged economic development.
In the East there are still “ghost villages”, deserted and depressed areas. Do you not agree that reunification has also had negative aspects?
Everyone makes mistakes, but instant reunification was the only chance Germany had. This chance also guaranteed peace in Europe. It is true that the choices made by Kohl also involved a very high price to be paid and some negative consequences in other regions. If the Chancellor had embraced a different option, let us say a less abrupt form of transition, the economy in the East would have initially collapsed more slowly, although it is also true that today, without the reforms of twenty years ago – currency equalisation, the extending of welfare – the differences between the “two Germanies” would be far more stark and there would be a greater imbalance at a European level.
In the recent general election, Die Linke, a party that also has roots in socialism, was extremely successful in the East. Why is that?
Germany has changed enormously, and yet in the Eastern areas it maintains surprising elements of continuity. This is proven by the fact that Die Linke excelled in the September elections in the five Eastern Länder, with the exception of Saxony. There is a cultural persistence that goes beyond material conditions. The super-structure, and this is the point, is at times more important than the structure itself. In my opinion, however, Die Linke will not last.
Why not?
It is cold fusion. The Party is sociologically and culturally formed by two souls that have little in common. They have formed a political alliance but their agenda is weak. The Party’s platform is a mixture of nostalgia for an impossible Keynesian model, and strong anti-European and anti-globalisation resentment. Its electoral power is mainly thanks to Gregor Gysi and Oskar Lafontaine’s charisma, as well as the successful objective of weakening the SPD. In the Eastern part of Die Linke there is a form of regret that is expressed by the refrain “we were better off before.” But those who say this would have to accept a return to the days of the DDR. How many would really do that? When one says that the DDR was a totalitarian regime, provided however with powerful social elements, I wonder why the same is not said about Nazism, which certainly had a very strong social element. When this issue is addressed it is done critically and without absolution. The DDR is instead “forgiven.”
Nazism and Communism, the two regimes. What about historical memory in former East Germany?
As far as Nazism is concerned there has been a self-acquittal operation. East Germany presented itself as the anti-Nazi Germany, the best Germany, the uncensored Germany, totally erasing the past. The fresh upsurge of neo-Nazi and xenophobic phenomena in the East are the consequence of this absence of score-settling. As far as the DDR’s agenda was concerned, a great deal of time will be needed before the Germans from the East will profoundly and correctly dissect their old homeland, before admitting that it was a real dictatorship. Die Linke blocks this operation because of the lack of a cultural background. I would say that in the East people have not come to terms with their history, not with Nazism and not with Communism.
It is said that after 1989 at an international level Germany has adopted a more autonomous approach and one at times disengaged from American choices. An approach that when the Wall was still up would not have been possible. What is your opinion?
Germany has certainly become a country with greater self-awareness. The Schröder-Fischer leadership marked Germany’s change of attitude towards itself and the rest of the world. Adenauer and Kohl’s Germany would not have been capable of opposing Bush or of intervening in Kosovo. The Fischer generation, with Auschwitz as its flag, made these choices so as not to repeat the horrors of the past.
Germany and the European Union. Has there been change on this front too?
Today’s Germany is apparently more distracted regards to Europe. People are cooling to the idea of Europeanism, as proved by the Constitutional Court’s ruling on the Lisbon Treaty. I believe that this can be mainly attributed to Merkel’s cultural attitude. Her past is different to that of previous Christian Democrat chancellors. Not even Schröder, however, was enthusiastic about Europe. In these matter Italy’s “silence” also plays a role. One must always remember that in times of stagnation of the process of Europeanist advancement, the Italian-German team has set Europe in motion again. France has an instrumental attitude as far as Europe is concerned. Frances basically uses Europe to keep an eye on Germany. Berlin and Rome really do believe in integration. Things have changed slightly now. For the Germans, however, Europe is the only possible solution. This also because Berlin is historically too powerful to keep the balance and too weak to be hegemonic. This is precisely why Europe is necessary. Germany must return to address this issue and stimulate a debate again in the public arena. Italy can help in a return to the Europeanist vocation, that is if Italy, currently rather feeble in this sector, recovers its impetus.
Translated by Francesca Simmons