Good, Great, and Bad Government

When I think about German politics, Siena never leaves my mind. Now that we in Europe are in a state of, as they now say, polycrisis, in conditions of a long-term and prolonged crisis. In politics, economics, culture, religion, not to mention the new difficulties and demands of everyday life. In Italy, in Germany, not to mention the wars in other regions. So then, Siena in Tuscany, or more precisely the Palazzo Publico, is perhaps the most representative city hall in Europe. The ground floor with magnificent, well-known frescoes by Ambrogio Lorenzetti from the 14th century. Topics that I particularly liked: “Good government,” “Effects of good government in the city and country,” and the opposite “Effects of bad government.”

These are impressive paintings! Masterpieces not only of art, but primarily of political insight. Not because of the beautiful allegories of virtues in the “Hall of Peace” and their blessings of prosperity in town and country. But because of the allegories of the vices in politics of bad government, namely: tyranny, cruelty, deceit, fraud, fanaticism, discord, treachery, injustice, greed, arrogance, ambition. The artist revealed all these qualities in villains from the government, and these qualities he sees develop into murderers, thieves, house robbers, and devastators of the country. So it was, so it is.

We would not have to dwell long on the artist-miracle worker of the late Middle Ages, if the following question these days in Germany had not been asked more and more often and loudly: Do we really have good government? And in a popular TV show, a famous artist calmly gives the answer in front of 12 million viewers: “In Switzerland, everything goes downhill on its own, but here we have politics that ensures this.” It’s not about right or left. It is not whether the topics commonly discussed in Germany and Italy – migration, climate, energy, health, social security, government budgets, economics, inflation, etc. – require more common sense, action, or blind zeal. It is not whether to continue to support the ruling, i.e., elected parties, or adhere to opposition views. After all, doubts are growing that Germany will be well governed.

Among the negative consequences for citizens and against the three-party alliance, the misguided energy policies have a particularly strong impact. In March 2011, following the Fukushima disaster, Chancellor Merkel in a panic abandoned the proven technology of German nuclear power plants and continued to favor Russia as its preferred energy supplier. And the stubbornness of the “greens” ended in April 2023 with the shutdown of the last three nuclear power plants. It threw Germany’s public finances into such disarray and turned citizens against the government that Germany’s highest constitutional court has now vetoed it: the chaos in fiscal policy resulted not from a “state of emergency” but from misrule. Now it is dangerously smoldering.

And here we come to Lorenzetti’s “Effects,” results, and side effects. By which it becomes clear and increasingly obvious whether governments are good or bad, whether politicians are responsible or willful. Neither their words are important, nor their lofty ideals and ideas far from reality, nor the boldly presented, hypocritically twisted explanations of the obvious problems of the German Res publica, billion-dollar gaps in the main, secondary, interim, and sub-budgets.

This now seems to be the common conclusion of rulers at the federal level, in the states and municipalities. The worse the situation (or it is portrayed as such), the more money (from taxpayers) generous politicians can spend. Is this the norm? Yes, the politicians of the ruling “Traffic Light” coalition, the “red” Social Democrats (SPD) under the leadership of Chancellor Olaf Scholz, the “greens” under the leadership of Vice-Chancellor (Economy Minister) Robert Habeck and Foreign Minister Annalena Barbock, and the “yellow” Free Democrats under the leadership of Finance Minister Christian Lindner, in addition the ministers of these three parties are vying to demand more and more billions for the most magnificent future investments. Politicians who have been in power for years declare a “state of emergency” as if declaring victory. Primarily so not to be constrained by the “debt brake” prescribed by the Constitution – now this is the devil’s word for some and the last lifeline from national bankruptcy for others.

How could this happen in Germany, that the three-party alliance of Social Democrats, Greens, and Liberals is under threat after just two years in power? It also seems to more and more German citizens that during her 16 years as chancellor (from 2005 to 2021) – despite all the eulogies during her tenure – Angela Merkel did not arrange everything in the best possible way, neither for Germany nor for Europe. She managed to maintain unity within changing coalitions (from the FDP Union to the SPD Union) and led the European Union through some crises. It might be worth it.

But now the obvious “Effects” of her decisions burden her more and more. Tensions in the EU over fiscal policy between North and South remained unmanageable to this day, making them difficult to resolve. For example, during the migration crisis, i.e., the influx of hundreds of thousands of people into Europe, Chancellor Merkel, as she explained, did not want to have an “ugly picture,” thus seeking to pursue nice policies instead of good ones. This has become a common theme running through German domestic and foreign policy since 2005. It is necessary to promote a sense of moral well-being and inspiration among the Germans. The state sought to protect citizens from all dangers, be it viruses, climate change, or dangerous and now banned nuclear energy, be it any injustice or possible discrimination.

Now it ends in a state of emergency because the nice policies of all the ministers seemed more important to (almost) everyone.

By the way, in Siena, the frescoes “Effects of Bad Government” are badly damaged. Perhaps as a warning sign.