2 - 1997

Solidarity and Justice

The joint church statement

...on the economic and social situation in Germany

by Hermann E.J. Kalinna

The author wrote this article for the Association of Protestant Employers in Germany. In the joint church statement, he finds confirmation of his belief that welfare provision in any society depends on a functioning market economy. He questions the meaning of "solidarity" and "justice" in the statement´s title, and notes the failure to include the concept of freedom. Hermann E. J. Kalinna is a theological consultant to the Association of Protestant Employers.

The Association of Protestant Employers was actively involved in the genesis of this publicly very well-received statement from the start. Our Chairman, Professor Heinz Reichmann, had a hand in drafting it. Members of our association have lent their encouragement and criticism to discussions on the statement at numerous meetings. The reason is plain: most neutral observers, and notably many from abroad, view the economic and social situation in our country as critical.

Of course, this is partly due to the heavy burden of reconstructing the eastern German economy. Most West German observers underestimated what we were taking on after 40 years of socialist mismanagement. True, the billions pumped into former East Germany did initially boost the economy in the west, and a short-lived boom concealed the fact that former West Germany was already nearing serious trouble, with or without the extra load. These difficulties became apparent to a broader public only gradually, as the jobless figures persistently increased. It was rightly taken as a particularly ominous sign that ever more people who wanted to work had ever less prospect of finding a job should the economy take a turn for the better. This group, the long-term unemployed, also continued to grow during recent economic upswings. The churches played a major part in focusing public attention on this increasingly serious human problem, which in the meantime has escalated more and more into a problem of the economy as a whole.

That the gravity of this phenomenon only gradually became apparent to a large part of the public also relates to the fact that, unlike in the years from 1929 to 1933, there was an intact welfare safety net that could hide the consequences of unemployment for longer than was the case during the 1920s depression. In those days there was not even a remotely comparable welfare system. Fluctuations in the economy are also mitigated today by the fact that in many families, both parents go to work, so that if one becomes unemployed, there is another income to help get by.

Doubtless not the least merit of the consultation process is that it has - if not quite soon enough, then at least just in time - clearly and distinctly vocalized the problem that Germany faces. And the problem has been rightly named: the economic and social situation of the country. Contrary to established traditions and inclinations, social aspects were not treated in isolation, but positioned from the start within the overall economic context. Hence it is misleading to label it a "social" statement, as it is often called in German. The churches have written and pronounced on things social often enough. The improvement here is that it clearly identifies and articulates the dependence of the social situation on the economy. The important role of employers in the economic and hence social well-being of a nation is also acknowledged more distinctly than before.

As the discussion continues, we must argue whether this has come across with sufficient force. But this does not alter one conviction which the Association of Protestant Employers shares with the churches and which we must put on record here: Without a functioning market, it is impossible to provide for people in their millions. But the market alone is not enough. It needs a legal, social and cultural framework, without which it becomes ineffective, and indeed degenerates. Without this framework, not only does social provision disappear: the market itself collapses. One thing is for sure: The question of how "social" the market economy can and must be should not be answered once and for all. It will always accompany us in the further shaping of the market economy.

In view of this, the Association of Protestant Employers welcomes the fact that the church statement shows increasing understanding towards the changed economic and welfare conditions in united Germany, and towards the need to reform the welfare state. We are grateful that it acknowledges the social market economy as the appropriate framework for competition to operate in, and that it stresses the principle of subsidiarity in the social policies of Germany and the European Union. We are particularly pleased that it recognizes the need to improve the general economic infrastructure in order to create as many jobs as possible. The ideas that the churches name - while not by any means new - carry our support regarding wage-rises in line with productivity, cuts in non-wage costs of labour, ending the use of welfare insurance funds for unrelated purposes, and flexible working hours. We must still question, however, whether it has been made clear enough across the board that Germany´s competitive position as an industrial location is partly a result of inflated social welfare expenditure that weighs down the labour input factor.

Protestant employers particularly support the call for broader distribution of productive capital. Together with the Catholic Employers´ Federation, the Association of Protestant Employers has drawn up a concept paper for a new wealth policy. We are convinced that the key to change is held less by industry and the unions than by Parliament and its fiscal and monetary policies.

The Association of Protestant Employers welcomes the churches "taking leave of the desire for a welfare state that paternalistically provides for its citizens from the cradle to the grave." It should be stressed that the statement, with Biblical underpinnings, reminds us that the Christian faith gives strength, courage and confidence to act responsibility even in today´s circumstances. Particularly in difficult times, still giving courage to live and act is not the least important effect of preaching the gospel. Yet this encouragement is often barely discernible behind the chorus of complaining and accusing voices.

A number of problems that we cannot mention separately here will rule the continuing discussion for a long time to come. To name two areas of conflict by way of example: Firstly, in the course of modernization, church workers and opinions often side with protests to save old industries that receive billions in subsidies. At the same time, other church representatives bemoan a lack of investment in education and in industries that show promise for the future. Secondly, the call to accept responsibility in the One World will meet with broad approval. Yet this entails conflicts of interest that are not easy to resolve. Put simply: opening our markets for goods (and labour?) to Third World countries would be the best form of development aid, but may endanger the internal stability of our own country. We need look no further than the state of the construction industry and its demands to check the inflow of cheap labour even from within the EU.

True, increasing soberness and realism is becoming noticeable among church representatives in these and many other questions. This may be related to the fact that the churches, though currently still well off, are increasingly getting into financial difficulties themselves. When the time comes that church regions are not only no longer able to appoint large numbers of new vicars, but are forced to announce wholesale layoffs, the recognition will spread that making demands of "society", "the state" or "the economy" is not an adequate means of helping victims. This helps break down prejudices in talks between churches and industry, and promotes the exchange of ideas regarding shared problems.

I would like to close with a fundamental question. The title says, "For a future founded on solidarity and justice." Both words require scrutiny. Solidarity is not only positively taking the side of others, but also a battle call in defence of vested interests. In this second meaning, there is no doubt that it is one of the chief causes of our currently precarious situation. Justice is a regulative principle better suited to naming and fighting manifest inequity than to establishing material equity. The Romans were already aware of this: Fiat justitia, pereat mundus. Summum jus, summa injuria.

Most noticeable, though, is the fact that the great, classical concept of freedom hardly appears in the church statement. There is talk of direct responsibility and personal initiative. Oddly enough, however, the concept of freedom as founded in Christian teaching and philosophical and political thought is not given a central place. Yet it was the want of freedom that caused socialism to collapse. Solidarity and justice are important guiding principles, but they are inadequate to the task of establishing and developing a social market economy. We certainly cannot define the Christian figure of humanity in terms of these two concepts without also mentioning the freedom of the Christian individual. We must watch that in establishing solidarity and justice we do not slowly suffocate the scope for freedom which is not only a precondition for financial well-being, but which people need like the air they breathe.

Written and translated for publication in this magazine.