Means and Ends

[…] es genügte ihr, dass damit dieser grässliche Vorfall in irgendeine Ordnung zu bringen war und zu einem technischen Problem wurde, das sie nicht mehr unmittelbar anging.

We’re witnessing a rather strange debate in Germany these days. It’s strange in two ways. First and foremost, I always deemed it a dead-sure thing that there would never be an occasion for this very debate in our country, a country that the historian Edgar Wolfrum gave the epithet of die geglückte Demokratie in his book of the same title – the felicitous democracy.

Secondly, this debate is wellnigh inaudible whereas I’d have expected it to be a ubiquitous and hotly contested topic. I’d have assumed that the papers, the blogs, the talk shows, the cafés and bars would be abuzz with it. Even mass protests wouldn’t be totally out of place, I should think, demonstrations to protect our democracy like those we saw against right-wing extremism. But what I perceive is only a rather muted and spiritless affair.

The debate I’m talking about revolves around what happened in the Bundestag this week: a would-be (that is: not yet elected) Bundeskanzler tried to provide himself with the means for acquiring the money he would need during his chancellorship by making a deal with two parties of the previous coalition who are currently acting as the caretaker government and by asking the old parliament to pass the according change of our constitution because the current constitutional rules would not permit the debts he’s going to incur (contrary to what he’d said during the election campaign) and because he’d probably not be able to raise the necessary majority for the said change of the constitution in the new parliament, elected back in February – and he succeeded.

This is quite a sentence. But it’s worth writing it out and letting it sink in.

There is some discussion but it’s not only feeble but off track all too often, too, since the apologists of what has happened do not tire of quoting the verdict of the Bundesverfassungsgericht: the judges have confirmed the legitimacy of the proceedings. Which is not surprising because as long as the new parliament has not yet convened and as long as there is no new government, the old parliament and the old government can and must act.

But this is where the discussion is off track: the moot question is not whether what Friedrich Merz did was legal. I doubt that any reasonable person will deny this. Rather, what we should debate is if it was the right thing to do.

What the apologists are not able or willing to understand is that legal feasibility is not the same as ethical integrity. You can do very mean things without breaking the law. If, just to give a tangible real-life example, you have affairs, thus cheat on your partner – it’s perfectly legal. But is it good, is it the right thing? – When you’re rich you can pay specialists to reduce your tax burden by every means possible, stretching the rules to the very limits. Legal? You bet. A good thing to do? Probably not. – And almost all of us have used electronic gadgets in their lives whose production entailed the exploitation of poor people somewhere else in the world who paid with their health for our convenience. Would a judge come after us for it? Nope. Does this answer all the questions about our beloved tech gadgets? … Well, you get the gist.

And to be clear about this: I do not talk about if the debts planned by Friedrich Merz are a good or a bad idea or if the intended use of the money is beneficient or not. This is an entirely different discussion. What I’m about is the way that was chosen to reach the goal.

It feels strange to spend so many words on something that should be obvious without much pondering. But it seems these words need to be said.

The whole thing’s not just academical hairsplitting but a real problem with real consequences. Losing the interest in discussing things of such import means weakening one of the pillars of our civilisation. And losing the ability to differentiate between what you can do and what you should do means knocking that pillar over.

Edgar Wolfrum’s book »Die geglückte Demokratie« was among my best reads of 2020, by the way.