The High Price of Freedom By Gunther Grasse.
Saturday May 7, 2005
The Guardian books.guardian.co.uk
It is 60 years since the German Reich's
unconditional surrender. That is equivalent to a working
life with
a pension to look forward to. So far back that memory,
that wide-meshed sieve, is in danger of forgetting it.
Sixty years ago, after being wounded in the chaotic
retreat in Lausitz, I lay in hospital with a flesh wound
in my right thigh and a bean-sized shell splinter in my
right shoulder. The hospital was in Marienbad, a military
hospital town that had been occupied by American soldiers
a few days
earlier, at the same time as Soviet forces were
occupying the neighbouring town of Karlsbad.
In Marienbad, on May 8, I was a naive
17-year-old, who had believed in the ultimate victory
right to the end. Those who had survived the mass murder
in the German concentration camps could regard themselves
as liberated, although they were in no physical condition
to enjoy their freedom. But for me it was not the hour of
liberation; rather, I was beset by the empty feeling of
humiliation following total defeat. When May 8 comes
round again and is celebrated in complacent official
speeches as liberation day, this can only be in
hindsight, especially as we Germans did little if
anything for our liberation. In the initial post-war
years our lives were determined by hunger and cold, the
misery of refugees, the displaced and bombed-out. In all
four zones occupied by the wartime allies, Britain,
France, the United States and the Soviet Union, the only
way to manage the ever-increasing crush of the more than
12 million Germans who had fled from, or been driven out
of, East and West Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia and the
Sudentenland, was to force them into our own cramped
living
rooms. Whenever, and especially in a
party-political sense, the question is posed, "What
can we Germans be proud of?", the first thing we
should mention is this essential achievement - even
though it was forced on us. We had hardly got used to
freedom when compulsion had to be applied. As a result,
in both German states, huge long-term camps for refugees
and displaced persons were avoided. The risk of building
up feelings of hate was thereby diverted, as was the
desire for revenge engendered by years of camp life which
- as today's world shows - can result in terror and
counter-terror.
So, it was an achievement of a special kind.
Especially since the compulsory settlement of refugees
and displaced persons had more often than not to be
carried out in the face of xenophobic resistance from the
established local population. The realisation that all
Germans, not only those bombed out and now homeless, had
lost the war dawned only hesitantly. At this early stage,
in their dealings with one another, the Germans
were practising that virulent attitude towards foreigners
which still exists today.
Even then there were spokespersons for the rhetoric
of liberation. They appeared individually and in groups.
So many self-appointed anti-fascists suddenly set the
tone in which one was entitled to ask: how had Hitler
been able to make headway against such strong resistance?
Dirty linen was quickly
washed clean, with people being absolved of all
responsibility. Counterfeiters were subsequently busy
coining new expressions and putting them into
circulation. Unconditional surrender was changed to
"collapse". Although in business, law and in
the rapidly re-emerging schools and
universities, even the diplomatic service, many
former National Socialists maintained their hereditary
wealth, stayed in office, continued to hold on to their
university chairs and eventually continued their careers
in politics, it was claimed that we were starting from
"zero hour" or square one. A particularly
infamous distortion of facts can be seen even today in
speeches and publications, with the crimes perpetrated by
Germans described as "misdeeds perpetrated in the
name of the German people".
In addition, language was used in two different
ways to herald the future division of the country. In the
Soviet occupied zone, the Red Army had liberated Germany
from the fascist terror all by itself; in the Western
occupied zones, the honour of having freed not only
Germany but the whole of
Europe from Nazi domination was shared exclusively
by the Americans, the British and the French.
In the Cold War that quickly followed, German
states which had existed since 1949 consistently fell to
one or other power bloc, whereupon the governments of
both national entities sought to present themselves as
model pupils of their respective dominating powers. Forty
years later, during the Glasnost period it was ironically
the Soviet Union that broke up the Democratic Republic,
which had by that point become a burden. The Federal
Republic's almost unconditional subservience to the US
was broken for the first time when the SPD-Green ruling
coalition decided to make use of the freedom given to us
in sovereign terms 60 years ago, by refusing to allow
German soldiers
to participate in the Iraq war.
"Donated Freedom" was the title of a
speech which I gave to the Berlin Academy of Arts on May
8 1985. At the time, the country was still divided, so I
compared both states, their need for disassociation,
their different dependencies, their own particular brand
of dogmatic materialism, their fear of and their longing
for unification. The "Donated Freedom" applied
only to the West German state, the Eastern one went away
empty-handed.
Twenty years later, in view of the condition of the
Federal Republic, now enlarged through reunification, we
question how this gift was used. Have we dealt carefully
with the freedom which we did not win, but was given to
us? Have the citizens of West Germany properly
compensated the citizens of the former Democratic
republic who, after all, had to bear the main burden of
the war begun and lost by all Germans? And a
further question: is our parliamentary democracy as a
guarantor of freedom of action, still sufficiently
sovereign to take action on the problems facing us in the
21st century?
Fifteen years after signing the Treaty of Unity, we
can no longer conceal or gloss over the fact that,
despite the financial achievements, German unity has
essentially been a failure. And was right from the start.
Petty calculation prevented the government of the time
from pursuing an objective grounded in the Constitutional
Act by way of precaution, namely to submit to the
citizens of both states a new constitution relevant to
the endeavours of Germany as a whole. It is therefore
hardly surprising that people in the former East Germany
should regard themselves as second-class Germans. As far
as the ownership of manufacturing establishments, the
energy supply, newspapers and publishing are concerned,
this formerly "nationally owned" fabric of the
departed state has been wound up with the occasionally
criminal collusion of the privatisation agency and
ultimately expropriated. The jobless rate is twice as
high as in the former West Germany. West German
arrogance had no respect for people with East
German cv's. The formerly feared migration of the
population - which led to the over-hasty introduction of
the West German Deutschmark into East Germany - is
happening now, daily. Whole areas of the country, its
cities and its villages, are
being emptied. After the privatisation agency had
completed its bargain sales, West German industry and
similarly the banks withheld the necessary investment and
loans and, consequently, no jobs were created. Here, fine
exhortations are of little use. In view of this skewed
situation, only
parliament, the lawmakers, can help. Which brings
us back to the question of whether parliamentary
democracy is able to act.
Now, I believe that our freely elected members of
parliament are no longer free to decide. The customary
party pressures, for which there may well be reasons, are
not critical here; it is, rather, the ring of lobbyists
with their multifarious interests that constricts and
influences the Federal
parliament and its democratically elected members,
placing them under pressure and forcing them into
disharmony, even when framing and deciding the content of
laws. Favours minor and major smooth the way.
Reprehensible scams are dismissed as sorry misdemeanours.
No one any longer takes serious exception to what is now
a sophisticated system, operating on the basis of
reciprocal backhanders.
Consequently, parliament is no longer sovereign in
its decisions. It depends on powerful pressure groups -
the banks and multinationals - which are not subject to
any democratic control. Parliament has thereby become an
object of ridicule. It is degenerating into a subsidiary
of the stock exchange.
Democracy has become a pawn to the dictates of
globally volatile capital. So can we really be surprised
when more and more citizens turn away from such blatant
scams, indignant, antagonised and ultimately resigned and
regard elections as a simple farce and decline to vote?
What is needed is a democratic desire to protect
Parliament against the pressures of the lobbyists by
making it inviolable. But are our parliamentarians still
sufficiently free for a decision that would bring radical
democratic constraint? Once again the question arises,
what has become of the freedom presented to us sixty
years ago? Is it now no more than a stock market profit?
Our highest constitutional value no longer protects civil
rights as a priority, and has rather been wasted at cut
prices, so that it now only serves the so-called
free-market economy in line with the neoliberal
Zeitgeist. Yet this concept, which has become a fetish,
barely conceals the asocial conduct of the banks,
industrial associations and market speculators. We all
are witnesses to the fact that production is being
destroyed worldwide, that so-called hostile and friendly
takeovers are destroying thousands of jobs, that the mere
announcement of rationalisation measures, such as the
dismissal of workers and employees, makes share prices
rise, and this is regarded unthinkingly as the price to
be paid for "living in freedom".
The consequences of this development disguised as
globalisation are clearly coming to light and can be read
from the statistics. With the consistently high number of
jobless, which in Germany has now reached five million,
and the equally constant refusal of industry to create
new jobs, despite demonstrably higher earnings,
especially in the export area, the hope of full
employment has evaporated. Older employees, who still had
years of work left in them, are pushed into early
retirement. Young people are denied the skills for
entering the world of work. Even worse, with simultaneous
complaints that an ageing population is a threat and the
demand, repeated parrot-fashion, to do more for young
people and education, the Federal Republic - still a rich
country - is permitting, to a shameful extent, the growth
of what is called "child poverty".
All this is now accepted as if divinely ordained,
accompanied at most by the customary national grumbles.
Questions as to responsibility are sent straight to the
shunting department. Here, they are shunted first to one
siding, then then to the other. Yet the future of more
than a million children growing up in impoverished
families remains in the balance. Those who point to this
state of affairs and to the people forced into social
oblivion are at best ridiculed by slick young journalists
as "social
romantics", but usually vilified as
"Do-gooders". Questions asked as to the reasons
for the growing gap between rich and poor are dismissed
as "the politics of envy". The desire for
justice is ridiculed as utopian. The concept of
"solidarity" is relegated to the dictionary's
list of "foreign words".
Here the rich farmer and well-fed, there the
nameless who seek refuge in the soup kitchen. Here the
cool better-off - there the statistically-recorded social
problem cases. In the Federal Republic of Germany the
classless society, regarded by all as highly desirable,
is changing into a class-based
society that was long thought to be outdated. No
longer a possibility but a hard fact: what is paraded as
neo-liberal proves to be on close scrutiny a return to
disparaging practices of early capitalism. And the social
market economy - formerly a successful model of economic
and cohesive action - has degenerated into the free
market economy for which the constitutional obligation of
employers to contribute to workers' pensions is an
irritation and the striving for profit is sacrosanct.
When we were given freedom 60 years ago and,
defeated, initially did not know what to do with it, we
gradually made use of this gift. We learned democracy and
in doing so proved star pupils - because after all we
were incontrovertibly German. With the benefit of
hindsight, what was crammed into us through lectures was
enough to get us a reasonable end-of-term report. We
learned the interplay between government and opposition,
whereupon lengthy periods of government ultimately proved
arid. The much lauded and reviled generation of '68
produced new people and ultimately also tolerance. We had
to acknowledge that our burdens could not be cast aside,
they are passed by parents to children and our German
past, however much we travel and export, comes back to
haunt us. Neo-Nazis repeatedly brought us into disrepute.
Even so, we felt that democracy was here to stay. It had
to withstand several challenges. Another is upon us.
After the debris had been cleared and disposed of
in both German states, reconstruction in the East
proceeded under the constraints of the Stalinist system;
but in the Western state, it took place under favourable
conditions. What retrospectively is called the
"economic miracle" was not, however, due
to any individual achievement, but was won by many.
Included in that number are displaced persons and
refugees, those who had in fact to start at square one in
terms of material possessions. We must not forget the
contribution of foreign workers, initially politely
called "guest workers". In the rebuilding phase
businessmen were exemplary in investing every penny of
profit into job creation. The trades unions and
businesses were clearly aware of the decay of the Weimar
Republic, so they were forced to compromise and ensure
social equality. However, with so much toil and
profit-chasing, the past was in danger of being
forgotten.
Only in the sixties were questions asked, firstly
by writers then by a youth movement, simply called
"student protest", about everything that the
older people, the war generation, would sooner forget.
The protest movement strove verbally for revolution, but
was paid off with reform, for which, often
unintentionally, it had created the climate. But
for it, we would still be living in the claustrophobic
fog of the Adenauer years. Without the youth movement,
the social-liberal coalition's new Germany policy, as a
gradual convergence of the two states, could not have
been achieved.
The third challenge arose when the Wall had fallen
and, on a larger scale, the division of Europe ended, at
least in terms of power politics. The two German states
had existed for four decades more against than beside
each other. As there was no willingness on the Western
side to offer the East equal rights, the unity of the
country has so far existed only on paper. It was all done
too hastily and without an understanding of what
far-reaching consequences this haste would have.
Since then, the expanded country has stagnated.
Neither the Kohl government nor the Schröder government
has succeeded in correcting the initial errors. Lately,
perhaps too late, we have come to recognise that the
threat to the state - or what should be regarded as
Public Enemy No 1 - comes not from right-wing radicalism
but rather, from the impotence of politics, which leaves
citizens exposed and unprotected from the dictates of the
economy. Workers and employees are increasingly
blackmailed by the corporate group. Not parliament but
the pharmaceutical industry and the doctors' and
chemists' associations dependent on it decide who must
profit and reap the
benefit of health reform. Instead of the social
obligation which derives from owning property, maximising
profits has become the basic principle. Freely elected
MPs submit to both the domestic and global pressure of
high finance. So what is being destroyed is not the
state, which survives, but
democracy.
When the German Reich unconditionally surrendered
60 years ago, a system of power and terror was thereby
defeated. This system, which had caused fear throughout
Europe for 12 years, still leaves its shadow today. We
Germans have repeatedly faced up to this inherited shame
and have been forced to do so if we hesitated. The memory
of the suffering that we caused others and
ourselves has been kept alive through the
generations. We often had to force ourselves to face
this. Compared with other nations which have to live with
shame acquired elsewhere - I'm thinking of Japan, Turkey,
the former European colonial powers - we have not shaken
off the burden of our past. It will remain part of our
history as an ongoing challenge. We can only hope we will
be able to cope with today's risk of a new
totalitarianism, backed as it is by the world's last
remaining ideology.
As conscious democrats, we should freely resist the
power of capital, which sees mankind as nothing more than
something which consumes and produces. Those who treat
their donated freedom as a stock market profit have
failed to understand what May 8 teaches us every year.
|