How the German government educates the citizens

In 2015, the German government suddenly felt an urgent need to talk to the citizens. It was the time of the refugee crisis and the Pegida demonstrations in the east. At the time, Chancellor Angela Merkel attended “civil dialogues” all over the country. However, one thing was prevented by strict management: any real exchange between the head of government and the governed. They were only allowed to fill out index cards with their ideas about the “good life in Germany”.

The conversation is “the soul of democracy”, as the former SPD general secretary Peter Glotz once said, who died in 2005. But since Merkel’s reign, this conversation has been very one-sided, with more and more new lectures for the public. One hope for the time after the big coalitions and after the end of the Merkel era was that the official government “nudging”, the gentle paternalism of the population, could end. The SPD chancellor candidate at the time, Olaf Scholz, called for a culture of “respect” during the election campaign. It sounded like he was prepared to treat citizens like adults if they won the election.

But under Chancellor Scholz and his traffic light coalition with the Greens and the FDP, the propaganda element in the government’s communication has not disappeared, but rather intensified. For example, the “Live Democracy” campaign, which primarily provides taxpayer money to projects to promote a politically correct worldview, is expected to receive almost 200 million euros in the coming year.

“Because my mom needs me”

The economics and health ministries also instruct the Germans with expensive advertising campaigns; It’s about vaccination against Corona and saving energy. The campaigns can hardly be told apart by the slogans alone. “So that I get everything baked”, it says on the large-format posters, or: “Winter is coming”, “Let’s all stick together”, “Because my mom needs me and I need her”.

The Hamburg agency Raphael Brinkert is responsible for the health campaign and costs around 40 million euros, according to the ministry. Brinkert also designed the federal election campaign for today’s Chancellor Scholz. The energy-saving campaign, on the other hand, is being implemented by the Zum Goldenen Hirschen agency, which is close to the Greens. It will also cost around 40 million euros this year. An earlier campaign managed to get by with 8 million euros.

More expensive than the election campaigns of the SPD and CDU together

Two questions arise. Firstly, does the information content of the campaigns – vaccination, energy saving – justify the tax-financed costs of a total of more than 80 million euros? For comparison: the federal associations of the SPD and CDU spent less than half, 35 million euros, on their parties’ federal election campaigns in 2021. And secondly: In what larger context is this advertising actually located, what image of the government of the citizens is behind it?

When asked about the effort, those responsible answered the obvious: Yes, the costs were worth it. “Due to the crisis and the urgent need to save energy in order to get through the winter safely, the advertising budget was increased in 2022,” says a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Economic Affairs. To continue the campaign, further funds should be made available in 2023, she announced.

It is still said that it is not possible to prove the specific savings effect that slogans such as “Energy is scarce and expensive” or “Keep freedom and protect our climate” have on citizens. But energy consumption in the country is falling. Of course, this can be due to many factors, for example the relatively warm month of October or the fact that consumers are afraid of high energy prices anyway and are saving all by themselves.

In any case, the Green Economics and Energy Minister Robert Habeck made it clear at the start of his “Winter is coming” campaign that he is not only concerned with informing the public: “We are bringing the idea of ​​competition into the country, who can now switch to energy the fastest and most sustainably and thus makes the most exemplary progress.»

«Dad does good advertising»

Speaking of exemplary: Habeck is the minister who, according to the “Bild” newspaper, is said to be looking for his own photographer. For a framework contract of 400,000 euros, the politician should be perfectly staged.

The advertiser Raphael Brinkert, who developed the “I protect myself” vaccination campaign for the SPD-led Ministry of Health, also speaks of role models: “Our role models appeal to the population’s need for protection without being preachy.”

Brinkert was not available for an interview with the NZZ due to time constraints, but a look at his agency’s website reveals his principles: no advertising for the tobacco or armaments industry, but a commitment to climate protection and “eco-social transformation”. He wants to be able to look his children in the eye and say: “Dad does good advertising,” one learns. In a podcast available on the agency websitet Brinkert puts his approach in a nutshell: “Keep it simple and stupid.” Express yourself simply and stupidly.

information content? “Near zero”

Not everyone is as convinced of the value for money of the two major campaigns as the government clients and their money-making contractors. Reiner Holznagel, for example, the President of the Federal Association of German Taxpayers, finds sharp words of criticism: “These are purely political campaigns, the information content of which is close to zero.” In his opinion, the money would be better invested directly in climate protection or in improving the health system. Tax money is not intended for self-portrayal by ministers.

The economist Jan Schnellenbach from the Brandenburg Technical University is primarily concerned with the question of the context of the ministerial campaigns. The state must perceive the citizens as rational actors, he says; that is an inescapable prerequisite of democracy. The question is: is the German state doing this?

At the latest since Merkel set up Department 612 in the Chancellery in 2014 with the programmatic name “Govern effectively”, the executive’s educational interventions have increased, regardless of whether it’s about refugees, the corona virus or the “energy transition”. A former employee of the Chancellery, who does not wish to be quoted by name, says: “This department was exclusively responsible for a barrage of morally charged communication.”

The Christian Democrat Merkel was not alone in her desire for gentle public control. During his time in the White House, former American President Barack Obama employed Harvard professor Cass Sunstein as a “nudging” expert for the data-based manipulation of the population. And the psychologists from former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s “Behavioural Insights Team” were guests in Berlin during his term of office to advise the Merkel government.

The sound of the GDR young pioneers

While the classic “nudging” is supposed to imperceptibly influence citizens’ decisions – whether it’s saving energy, donating organs or paying taxes on time – the German government’s efforts were and are almost painfully obvious. “My discipline / is our best medicine” read a lockdown advertising poster in 2020. The diction is reminiscent of the Commandments of the young pioneers in the GDR: “We young pioneers study hard, are orderly and disciplined.”

The Chancellery Department 612 still exists today and is still responsible for “behavioral sciences”. According to the Federal Press Office, it has the task of “aligning projects and state offers better with the needs and experiences of citizens, making them (projects and offers) simpler and therefore better”. Or, loosely based on the advertiser Raphael Brinkert: as simple and stupid as possible.

“What we have increasingly observed in recent years are manipulative attempts by politicians to influence preferences,” says the economist Schnellenbach: “Instead of legally regulating dangerous behavior – which could of course be politically controversial – the executive tries to outlaw certain behavior and present other behaviors as exemplary. As a result, this leads to a moralization of politics, which is becoming stronger and stronger.” Responsibility for grievances and crises is attributed to the (mis)behaviour of citizens, while politicians fail to create better framework conditions for everyone.

Chops and guilt

When today’s Economics Minister Habeck was still an author and only an up-and-coming party politician, he still saw things in a similar way to Schnellenbach. At readings and political meetings, the Green politician took the view that it should be possible for individuals to grill a neck chops without feeling too much guilt – and that it was the job of politicians to create conditions under which livestock farming could meet animal welfare.

The Mainz historian Andreas Rödder, head of the liberal-bourgeois think tank “Republic 21”, also criticizes the fact that the patronizing way of speaking has been expanding since the days of Merkel. As a historian, he thinks of the classic authoritarian state when he thinks of neologisms such as the “Good Day Care Act” or the vaccination and energy saving campaigns: “Regulations and care are combined.”

From a constitutional point of view, the agitation by the Chancellery and ministries is also questionable: One of the standard commentaries on the German Basic Law (Dürig/Herzog/Scholz) defines “negative freedom of information” as protection against indoctrination by state information sources. The constitutional lawyer Christoph Grabenwarter cites the “historical perspective” as justification: After all, the Germans had to make a lot of experience with propaganda in two dictatorships.

The raised index finger

Even some Greens are now becoming uneasy about the flood of savings, showering and other behavioral tips with which the executive teaches their citizens. Klaus Müller, President of the Federal Network Agency since last spring, was once head of the Federal Association of Consumer Advice Centers. From this time he still knows that exaggerated moralization is often counterproductive: “If you individualize too much, then people don’t hear the message, they only see the raised index finger,” he recently told the “Spiegel”.

He is right. The government is not responsible for behavioral psychology. She can inform. It can create occasions for conversation. Above all, she could listen. If she did, she would know how much her pedagogical tone gets on the nerves of many citizens – and how little it is fruitful: according to various surveys, three quarters of Germans are dissatisfied with the traffic light government.