More injustice for the sake of justice in future – final comment on the outcome of German elections

By: Hatto Fischer, Athens

---

The outcome of the ‘grande coalition’ (yes, let us use the French way of pronouncing eloquently illusions of grandeur) can be put in a nutshell: change the age of retirement from 65 to 67 and voila more money to the state having become unable to pay off the expensive retirement scheme. Per definition money is made while those who waited from being a net contributor to the pension fund have to pay two more years before they can get a return to what money they paid over thirty or even more years. Not bad. At least the calculation by economists favoring such calculated move to ease financial burdens for the state seem to think ‘a bit more injustice for the sake of justice in future’ will not be so bad as many critics may think. At least the chief economist Michael Heise at the Dresdner Bank and Allianz Group thinks “this change is not revolutionary, but it is a step in the right direction and is not expected to lead to widespread protests” (Michael Heise, “The Coalition may do some good”, International Herald Tribune, Tuesday, November 15, 2005).

However such cold blooded calculation to dare making reforms only there where the least possible protest can be expected, adds salt to the already open wounds. For rather than the state saving payments while thinking net contributions to the pension fund will increase as a result, there are other scenarios likely. If the economy does not pick up, and unemployment has stayed at a persistent high level, then people will find the last stretch like in a marathon race a bit too much to take. Especially if the goal line already visible when entering the last bend is suddenly removed in front of one’s eyes into a far and distant future, people may end up not being able to make their pension contributions. Instead health costs will increase and unfortunately also the mortality rate (which is, of course, beneficial to the state if it is not burdened by an over aged population). It would be important to see different cost benefit calculations alone of this one intention of the big coalition in order to see on what assumptions possible benefits are based upon i.e. so many more people working for two more years and only then receiving full benefits. Furthermore, such risky imbalances reminds of old fashioned theories that to get more justice you have to risk more injustices. The argument echoes Blair’s stance on Iraq for he said if you want peace you must be prepared to risk war. As if costs of the one kind of development can be compared with the other. It should not be forgotten that any development worthy to speak of has to have a ‘moral base’ for otherwise it is not development but stagnation and the playing around with figures as long as public accountability is able to overlook the numerous creative accounting tricks.What is in offer by the agreement reached between Social Democrats and Christian Democrats remains to be seen. By these punitive measures they make clear that not reform is intended but a budgetary consolidation on the backs of those who will not protest. It means industrial lobbyists and other powerful interest groups will but not the average citizens.

Two comments have to be added. For one, Germany is an odd place since the pivot point of almost every political concept is the ‘small citizen’: der Kleinbuerger who has to shoulder almost everything and thus the give and take means reproducing an irrationality in the organizational sense since none of the institutions, including the Kuenstlersozialkasse – the insurance company for the artists and cultural workers – cares about what other financial obligations people have, for a set income will mean so much to pay at a monthly rate. Ignored are all other payments to be made on a monthly basis. It means the rate of payment is too high when compared to income level and what other costs are involved. If someone earns 2000 EURO a month, the insurance company for artists demands 500 EURO a month. If the person pays rent around 600, it would mean 900 EURO to live on. If that person has children and if the costs per day (transport, food, extras) is taken into consideration aside from other outstanding obligations (dental repair, car repair…) people are pushed to the brink of financial disaster. And this is still the optimistic model.

The other comment to be made is that this coalition agreement lacks anything like a vision on how to resolve the question of unemployment. After all even the Hartz reform was a trick with statistics and rearrangement as to who is obliged when to pay in case someone loses a job which is again different from the one who does not find a job. Developments based on citizens participation means getting people involved in what they are doing and then being compensated so as to have as basis of social justice an equity between work done and payment received. But Germany has abandoned already a long time ago any notion of social justice and therefore the social climate has been deteriorating year by year.

The agreement of the ‘grande coalition’ leaves little optimism that this agreement will work in practice never mind secure the future. There are already too many injustices built into the system that people cannot cope anymore with all the social and personal demands of others outside any sense of financial decency. The stigma of a society is already heavy when without a job; it is even worse once that person gets into financial difficulties for those institutions demanding payment per law do not take into consideration the person. The argument employees at those institutions give is always the same: talk to the politicians, they are the ones who are making the law. Reality brought about per definition will always be unjust; to call the raising of the retirement age by two years reform is ridiculous.

 

 

 

more Comments...