It doesn't look like the Germans will be able to find unity any time soon. The basic order may be fixed, but there are different views on whether it is a free-democratic one. The supposed East-West contrast, which is supposedly not getting smaller but bigger, doesn't play a role at all. It only derives from this and is heavily fueled by interested parties, by left-wing and right-wing agents of discord.
Other societies, even in such polarization – not unusual for democracies but recurring – can still raise the flag and rally around it. Germany, on the other hand, has always treated the national with a sharp finger and has rightly given preference to Europe. At least the remnants of national feeling were upheld in the mandate for reunification. When it was carried out 36 years ago, the end of history seemed to have been reached.
See F.A.Z. articles more often in your search results
F.A.Z. prefer on Google
Extremes fill the anti-national void
Since then, the national idea has wandered homeless in Germany. The Germans don't know what to do with it. On top of that, Europe has lost its appeal. Extremes take advantage of this and fill the national void. The right-wing nationalists from the AfD are opposed to the spokesmen of the left, who understand “never again” to mean that there is no longer any place for national feelings in Germany, except perhaps in football stadiums.
A look at the founding phases of the Federal Republic of Germany and the GDR reveals how far Germany has distanced itself from its recent history. At that time, it was self-evident that national interests and feelings were emphasized in the West, deep into the ranks of the SPD. Freedom, solidarity and security were the motivations for this. None of the three reasons would persuade anyone in the SPD to sing the national anthem today.
Federal Republican-leaning politicians, right up to the Federal President, claim that German patriotism is only possible with a “broken heart” because Germans need to know what nationalism has done to them and the world. The result is not a social impregnation under the sign of black, red and gold, not the “cohesion” that is repeatedly invoked, but rather the division into a “liberal democracy” and a “patriotic democracy”.
Still far from being at peace with immigration
The world of German democracy is once again divided by a wall. The Germans are still a people, but who and what “the” people are is no longer as self-evident as it was a generation ago. The people have become the worldview. The emergence of a new society, one with a migration background, and the question of whether Islam belongs to Germany contributed to this. The fact that Germany is far from being at peace with this can be seen from the fact that the CDU People's Party has never mentioned in its programs that Germany is a country of immigration - but the chancellor it appointed did, including Friedrich Merz.
The German nation was completely unprepared for what mass immigration meant, as it had not developed a national feeling without immigration, and indeed should not have developed it. This has led to the conspiracy theory that migration serves to completely drive out German from the Germans. The only truth is that migration, in its ideological exaggeration, has to do with creating a counter-model to the nation.
The dispute over this has become a culture war. It is symptomatic of this that in debates about war and peace, the word “traitor to the fatherland” is now more easily spoken by Germans than the word fatherland. The matter has also become a culture war because the actual East-West conflict extends far beyond Germany and consists of the extreme right and left turning away from the West towards Russia and autocracy, while the center suffers from rejection by America. What is coming will be an era in which no one yet knows what holds it together.
The only thing that is certain is that the dream of a world in which the national no longer plays a role will not come true in this new era either. The unity of a nation will continue to be a source of social and political strength. It cannot be ensured with growth rates, but only, as pathetic as that may sound, with love for one's country. However, this feeling cannot be imposed by the state in a democracy, even though democracy and nation belong together.
However, it is very possible to politically pave the way for identification with the fatherland. This does not require a “narrative” or an “empathetic” chancellor who bursts into tears when he announces reform. This would require decisions that go to the roots of the discord. A new society, such as the immigration society should be, cannot be organized in an uncontrolled, turbo-charged manner, as has been practiced in Europe in recent decades. A break would be necessary. It creates acceptance. Then there is hope that “liberal” and “patriotic” democracy will come together again.
