Anne Will is back from the summer break and takes up the dominant topic of the past two weeks: the leaflet affair about the Bavarian Minister of Economic Affairs Aiwanger. The talk guests are united in rejecting the content of the pamphlet. And yet there is disagreement.
The inhuman leaflet, an unknown number of which was found in Hubert Aiwanger’s satchel more than 35 years ago, has been making headlines for two weeks. This is due, on the one hand, to its anti-Semitic, fascist content, and, on the other hand, to the political and media treatment of the topic. The Bavarian Economics Minister Aiwanger has commented on this in more or less verbose terms. He is allowed to keep his office. There will be elections in Bavaria in about a month and his party, the Free Voters, is preparing to become the second strongest force. In Munich, the black-orange government coalition is trying to get back to business as usual. But it is not that easy. And that’s exactly what Anne Will’s talk show is about on Sunday evening.
The main actor himself, Hubert Aiwanger, is not invited. That would probably be too much of a good thing. The leader of the Free Voters in the Bavarian State Parliament, Florian Streibl, steps into the breach for him. And he does his best to understand and protect his party leader. Only at one point, when the moderator wants to know why Aiwanger did not respond directly and comprehensively to the questions from the “Süddeutsche Zeitung”, does he withdraw from the affair: “You have to ask Mr. Aiwanger that.”
As an Aiwanger understander, Striebl has a difficult time that evening. CSU veteran Günther Beckstein, who sits opposite him, calls Aiwanger’s handling of the allegations “anything but reasonable and professional”. The publicist and Green Party politician Marina Weisband sitting next to him even talks about how Aiwanger really could have apologized. In short: admission, explanation, insight and apology.
And then Streibl gets involved in a bizarre exchange of blows with presenter Will. The culprit is a questionable admission as to why Aiwanger is no longer commenting on the subject during his campaign appearances. “The beer tent is not a confessional, but the confessional is somewhere else,” says Streibl. “We are currently having an election campaign in Bavaria.” Will: “What’s that an explanation for?” Streibl: “That’s the explanation why you don’t stand in the beer tent and sprinkle ashes on your head.”
Will is stunned: “Really, Mr. Streibl? You claim that the Free Voters are the bulwark against anti-Semitism, so they are in the beer tent too, aren’t they?” Streibl, rowing: “Well, it’s me, so we’re doing enough. Well, I initiated a resolution in the state parliament against anti-Semitism and xenophobia.” Will: “But not in the beer tent?” Streibl: “Not in the beer tent.” Will: “Really? Are you talking anti-Semitic?” Streibl: “No, for God’s sake. I really have to put up with that, such a malicious assumption. That’s a malicious assumption.” Will: “I asked, it’s not malicious at all.” A short gasp, then a deep breath and finally Streibl explains himself: If Aiwanger were to travel to Jerusalem and Yad Vashem during the election campaign, then everyone would accuse him of saying that it was just an election campaign and not serious.
“Anti-Semitism is not a problem for Jews”
And despite such episodes, his boss is somehow pulled out of the affair at the end of the show. First of all, what Marina Weisband says is important. According to her own statement, she doesn’t care what Aiwanger did 35 years ago. “My concern is: Who is this man who is standing for election right now?” How does he deal with fascist words? Obviously not correct. “If I had had such an accusation, I would not portray myself as a victim of it, purely out of respect for the actual victims.” The publicist is alluding to a statement and an interview by Aiwanger from August 31st. At the time, he distanced himself from the “disgusting content” of the pamphlet and made it clear that he had “never been an anti-Semite” and “never an anti-humanitarian.” At the same time, however, he saw himself as the victim of a smear campaign that aimed to destroy him “politically and personally.” He told “Welt”: “In my opinion, the Shoah is being abused for party political purposes.”
Weisband: “Do you understand how painful it is for someone whose family was affected by the Shoah to hear that the Shoah is being used against them after a fascist hate pamphlet was found in their school bag?” And yet she doesn’t want an apology aimed exclusively at the Jewish community. Rather, Aiwanger should apologize to the general public. “Anti-Semitism is not a problem of Jews. Anti-Semitism is a problem of German culture.” Why should Jews bear the burden of dealing with this and writing indulgence letters, she asks.
Bavaria’s Prime Minister Markus Söder decided a week ago to stick with his deputy. His predecessor Beckstein thinks it was right that he reacted this way. And this despite the fact that Aiwanger answered “anything but comprehensively and satisfactorily” to the 25 questions addressed to him. As a reminder: Aiwanger cited gaps in his memory for some of the answers (everything is documented verbatim here). But firing him because of the current affair would have been completely wrong, said Beckstein. Because many people would say: “I don’t want the foolishness of my youth to be dragged into the public eye when I get a certain position somewhere.”
SZ journalist admits mistakes
Streibl points out that he has known Aiwanger for 15 years. During this time he did not make any anti-Semitic or “xenophobic” statements. “This 16-year-old boy who is portrayed in the media is a phenomenon that makes me say: Yes, someone is misguided.” And that is also horrible, says Streibl. But the person Aiwanger is completely different, and he believes this person.
Roman Deininger also agrees with this. We have to be lenient with the young Aiwanger, “we have to judge the 52-year-old strictly,” says the chief reporter of the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” (SZ). The paper got the leaflet affair rolling with an article at the end of August. Deininger defends his colleagues’ suspicious reporting and research at the time. But he also admits: The tone of the first article in particular was not right. “We gave the impression that we were not acting with maximum fairness towards Hubert Aiwanger. That was our mistake. That is what we regret most.”
Good journalists didn’t follow an agenda, but rather sought to bring to light things that needed to be brought to light. In this sense, Deininger also defends the reporting on the leaflet – with one caveat. According to his statement, Aiwanger had the opportunity to comment in detail on the leaflet accusation three times before the article was published. He didn’t do that extensively. Aiwanger only stated that his brother was the actual author after the allegations became known. However, if he had already made it credible beforehand that his brother was the author, then the story would not have appeared in the SZ, according to Deininger. Because there is no public interest in the brother’s past.
“…then we leave the ground of democratic coexistence”
In the panel discussion, conflict researcher Nicole Deitelhoff ultimately ensures that the discussion moves to another level, away from Aiwanger and towards democracy. She is in danger. On the one hand, there are the “quality media”, which have been trimmed for precisely these crises through two decades of crises and whose tonality often no longer fits. On the other hand, the political actors who need to be reminded that they are responsible for democratic coexistence.
Aiwanger is just one example of many in which substantive allegations are directly converted into an alleged campaign by the political enemy. A strategy that right-wing populists in particular would use. But the fact that the political opponent becomes the enemy and is thereby denounced and defamed applies to all political spectrums. “If it’s just a question of who’s my enemy and who’s my friend, then we’re leaving the ground of democratic cooperation,” warns Deitelhoff.
And so at the end of an entertaining program it is about nothing less than the future of democracy in Germany. Recent surveys show that less than half of the population is fully or partially satisfied with the functioning of democracy, says the political scientist. Now it’s about taking people along positively. With an honest political style and decision-makers who take responsibility for the next steps. A counter-proposal to populism and extremism. And to a victim-perpetrator reversal that distracts from the real problem.