"Let there be no constitutional amendments! This must be the hour of democracy"

Professor Schroeder, in our first expert interview on the corona crisis with a psychologist, we already dared to carry out the thought experiment of placing ourselves one year into the future: March 2021, the crisis is behind us. How has it changed our society?

The experience of mutual consideration could have relativized the exuberant individualism. We have noticed: Solidarity is the basis for overcoming the crisis and the basis for living well in societies.

Sounds good.

That was the positive scenario. The negative scenario could be: The neoliberal paradigm will not be challenged after all, at least not by the crisis winners. Because there are winners and losers in this crisis, too: losers who get sick, who lose their jobs or those who close down their businesses; winners who take advantage of the opportunities the crisis offers, for example in the digital sector, and increase their wealth and power even more.

Could nurses also be among the winners? In other words, will professions like these, which are proving to be truly systemic yet underpaid, get more than applause in the future?

The danger is that it will remain symbolic activities. What is needed, however, are structural changes. Because without a systematic upgrading of the system-relevant professions, there will be no better working conditions, including fair pay. Above all, there will be supply bottlenecks, which will be a massive burden in an aging society. Therefore, after the crisis, a new Concerted Action would be needed to upgrade these groups.

This is, so to speak, looking at how people relate to each other. How is the political system changing at the moment?

There is a lot of talk now about the return of the strong state, about the hour of the executive or even the hour of authoritarian leadership. But the opposite should be the case: We need the hour of democracy! The interventions that are now being practiced in the rights of freedom and participation must absolutely remain limited in time and scope. Above all, we must not restrict democratic rights and parliamentary control. A look at Hungary shows where this can lead. There must be no constitutional changes in favor of a centralization of power, as is already being discussed - not now and not later.

Does Germany's political system, as it is now, work in a crisis?

By and large, it's working well, as far as we can tell now. Federalism, which is sometimes criticized, is working. It is even a strength, because responsibility has to be assumed at all levels. And if faster and better successes are achieved in one state or region, they can be quickly adopted by the other parts. Anyone who thinks that a strong headquarters and a strong leader would be an advantage should look to the USA, Great Britain or Russia. Incidentally, I find it worrying in this context that Health Minister Spahn has transferred competencies in epidemic prevention from the states to the federal government with the Infection Protection Act. This is going in the wrong direction. It is about effective coordination between the states and the federal government and not about centralizing power with the central government. Overall, the German states seem to be proceeding in concert, with the differences mostly contextual, and in some cases more semantic.

Does your assessment also apply to the political center in Berlin?

Here, too, the political system has proven resilient. The government and parliament are capable of acting. The Bundestag changed its rules of procedure last week. Temporarily valid from 25. As a result, a quorum of one quarter of its members is now required to pass resolutions , and electronic voting is possible in the committees. This is precisely not a constitutional amendment, but an appropriate addition to the scope. However, it could be a consequence of the crisis that the political system also makes greater use of the possibilities of digitization in normal operations. Not to replace the physical presence, but to supplement it with digital possibilities. Incidentally, the European Parliament has known this as a normal modus operandi in six of its committees since 2014.

What figure is the EU currently cutting?

Everyone is hitting the EU right now. But it's often the same players who grant it only a few competencies. It's true that the EU is a comparatively weak player at the moment. When talking about the possibilities of the EU, a look at the corona styles of government in the countries is decisive: In Sweden, we have a comparatively liberal practice so far, in the southern European countries a semi-authoritarian approach, in Hungary a post-Soviet style. In the worlds of corona regulation, Germany occupies a middle position, oscillating between liberal and semi-authoritarian. It is not to be expected that the EU will be able to play a substantial coordinating role in view of these differences and without real EU competence in these matters. Nevertheless, learning processes are taking place between countries and at the EU level. 

And from a global perspective? Will we see stronger multilateral cooperation or, on the contrary, de-globalization?

We live in a world economy that is highly dependent on the division of labor. We see once again how vulnerable this system is, and this insight could lead to changes here and there. For example, by bringing the production of medical goods back to Europe and coordinating it here. Or by taking a critical look at the structure of the value chains, also from the point of view of climate change and a sustainable economy. But I don't believe in renationalizing the economy; that would not be desirable in a broader sense either. Incidentally, I would remind you of the financial crisis of 2008, when some experts also predicted or called for fundamental upheavals. In the end, not that much changed. That's why I'm reluctant to make bold forecasts. Nevertheless: The experiences of the Corona crisis should be motivation and starting point for necessary reforms of economy and politics; especially in the interest of the weaker and the environment.

Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schroeder heads the Department of Political System of the FRG at the University of Kassel. He is also a Fellow at the Social Science Research Center Berlin, where he conducts research in the Department of Democracy and Democratization.

Interview: Sebastian Mense