SHARE
COPY LINK
MY DEAR KRAUTS

MILITARY

Germany’s citizens in uniform

Roger Boyes, Berlin correspondent for British daily The Times, believes German society’s fascination with authority belongs confined to where it once was lacking: the country’s military.

Germany's citizens in uniform
Photo: DPA

I come from a military family and so I can well remember my English father’s withering contempt for the Bundeswehr, its concessions to the individual, its subversive concept of “Citizens in Uniform.”

He was, by the standards of the time, an enlightened man but he was sure of one thing: armies had to be strong, otherwise they had no function and strength meant ignoring dissent. There had to be leadership and a clear chain of command, not democratic consensus.

I was an adolescent, in perpetual conflict with my father, and so delighted in praising the Bundeswehr. “If you want blind loyalty,” I told him, “buy a German shepherd.” He threw a shoe at me.

But many non-German Europeans like me, growing up in the 1960s admired the “Citizens in Uniform” concept because we thought it undermined the army, and we considered all armies to be redundant back then. Of course, I have since changed my mind. And Germany has quietly discarded any pretence of having a democratic military. Defence Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg promised last week that he would make the new six month military service into an effective training programme, but we all know that conscription is doomed in Germany, just as it has been phased out elsewhere.

And that’s really just fine; it is time for the citizen to take off his uniform, and let a German soldier to be a soldier. But what the country needs now is radical changes in other institutions that are being managed as if they were part of the Prussian military.

For example, hospitals where powerful head doctors are treated like generals that cannot be challenged or contradicted. Academic institutes where professors expect lowly researchers to produce the work for their articles. Or state television channels, where programme directors are regarded as commanders on horseback leading the battle for ratings.

All these institutions are stuffed full of talented people yet the old-fashioned chain of command, the muzzling of criticism, throws much of that creative energy away. Why do German universities come so low down on international league tables? Why is German television so poor compared to foreign competition? Not because there is a shortage of intelligent, gifted people, but rather because of the way such institutions are managed.

Germany needs a cultural revolution, an opening up. Take German football clubs. Players used to be working class boys who, in return for obeying orders, could make themselves wealthy. Now players are more articulate; they are young millionaires with advisers, and they want the management to listen to their views.

Philipp Lahm quickly found out where that leads. FC Bayern Munich will not accept publicly expressed criticism; a soldier is allowed to grumble in the barracks but not confront his superior officer. Why did Lahm make his doubts about the team’s strategy public? Because no-one was listening when he tried to express them privately.

No wonder that the late goalkeeper Robert Enke was afraid to go public about his depression. He had seen what had happened to Sebastian Deisler at Bayern. Edmund Stoiber, the former state premier of Bavaria, once moaned depressed Deisler was “one of the biggest losing deals” the club had ever negotiated. Was Enke scared of being written off as a loss?

It could be that other countries apart from Germany have these problems; the fear that institutional managers have of losing their authority, of accepting criticism without looking weak. But it’s been a long time since I’ve seen a football coach in England, Italy or France behave like Shalke’s Felix Magath.

“He is like one of those crazy colonels in the First World War or the Crimean War who would yell at his soldiers so that they would be more afraid of him than of the enemy,” said an English friend after we had watched one of Magath’s tantrums.

But football is not war. Good, modern management is not based on fear. If your boss rejects intelligent suggestions, if he accuses you of disloyalty for thinking independently, then tell him to buy a German shepherd. You are not in the army.

For more Roger Boyes, check out his website here.

Member comments

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.

NATO

Erdogan links Swedish Nato approval to Turkish EU membership

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Monday he would back Sweden's Nato candidacy if the European Union resumes long-stalled membership talks with Ankara.

Erdogan links Swedish Nato approval to Turkish EU membership

“First, open the way to Turkey’s membership of the European Union, and then we will open it for Sweden, just as we had opened it for Finland,” Erdogan told a televised media appearance, before departing for the NATO summit in Lithuania.

Erdogan said “this is what I told” US President Joe Biden when the two leaders spoke by phone on Sunday.

Turkey first applied to be a member of the European Economic Community — a predecessor to the EU — in 1987. It became an EU candidate country in 1999 and formally launched membership negotiations with the bloc in 2005.

The talks stalled in 2016 over European concerns about Turkish human rights violations.

“I would like to underline one reality. Turkey has been waiting at the EU’s front door for 50 years,” Erdogan said. “Almost all the NATO members are EU members. I now am addressing these countries, which are making Turkey wait for more than 50 years, and I will address them again in Vilnius.”

Sweden’s prime minister, Ulf Kristersson, is due to meet Erdogan at 5pm on Monday in a last ditch attempt to win approval for the country’s Nato bid ahead of Nato’s summit in Vilnius on July 11th and 12th. 

Turkey has previously explained its refusal to back Swedish membership as motivated by the country’s harbouring of people connected to the PKK, a Kurdish terrorist group, and the Gülen movement, who Erdogan blames for an attempted coup in 2016. 

More recently, he has criticised Sweden’s willingness to allow pro-Kurdish groups to protest in Swedish cities and allow anti-Islamic protesters to burn copies of the Quran, the holy book of Islam.

In a sign of the likely reaction of counties which are members both of Nato and the EU, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said that the two issues should not be connected. 

“Sweden meets all the requirements for Nato membership,” Scholz told reporters in Berlin. “The other question is one that is not connected with it and that is why I do not think it should be seen as a connected issue.”

Malena Britz, Associate Professor in Political Science at the Swedish Defence University, told public broadcaster SVT that Erdogan’s new gambit will have caught Sweden’s negotiators, the EU, and even Nato Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg off guard. 

“I think both the member states and Stoltenberg had expected this to be about Nato and not about what the EU is getting up to,” she said. “That’s not something Nato even has any control over. If Erdogan sticks to the idea that Turkey isn’t going to let Sweden into Nato until Turkey’s EU membership talks start again, then Sweden and Nato will need to think about another solution.” 

Aras Lindh, a Turkey expert at the Swedish Institute of Foreign Affairs, agreed that the move had taken Nato by surprise. 

“This came suddenly. I find it hard to believe that anything like this will become reality, although there could possibly be some sort of joint statement from the EU countries. I don’t think that any of the EU countries which are also Nato members were prepared for this issue.”

SHOW COMMENTS