Walter Momper : The Up and Coming Force for ‘Just Plain Germans’

In contrast to West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl--whose key backers include the renowned, industrious burgermeisters and thrifty bankers of Europe’s economic superpower--West Berlin Mayor Walter Momper speaks more for constituencies--including socialists, ecologists and displaced East German workers--noticeably absent in most discussions about Germany’s post-unification future.

Momper, the rumpled, heavyset 45-year-old son of handwerkers --both of his parents were cooks in post-war Bremen--considers himself one with the “just plain Germans” who make up the historic base of his Social Democratic Party (SPD). His insight into these voters was most evident in his enthusiastic support for Kohl’s drive for rapid reunification with the former German Democratic Republic (GDR). The current SPD standard-bearer for chancellor, Oskar Lafontaine, was skeptical of quick unity, an attitude that may well doom his chances, as well as those of his party, to make a good showing in the Dec. 2 all-German elections.

If Lafontaine is soundly trounced, as many expect, Momper may be in an ideal position to pick up the pieces. Currently running for election as mayor of the newly united Berlin, he already rules the city in coalition with the ascendant Greens. He is also gaining a following among former East Germans in Berlin.

Indeed, Berlin mayors have a tradition of rising in the political ranks in post-war Germany. Among Momper’s predecessors are former Chancellor Willy Brandt and West German President Richard von Weizsacker. When the true costs of unification--such as higher taxes and mass unemployment in the former GDR--become more evident, Momper, future mayor of the largest metropolis in central Europe, could easily emerge as the key spokesman for “just plain Germans” on both sides of the old border.

QUESTION: Given the events of the last few years in Eastern Europe, have you felt any necessity to change your position as a socialist?

ANSWER: No. I don’t think the (events) had anything to do with socialism in the sense that I understand it, nor with Democratic Socialism. What came from the breakdown in all those countries--but especially in the GDR (German Democratic Republic)--was nothing but the pure dictatorship of bureaucracy and of a single party. Not actually of the party--but a few people in the party. That had very little to do with socialism.

Q: Do you think the former Communists who now call themselves the Party of Democratic Socialism have a future in Berlin?

A: I don’t think the Communists will have any role. Camouflage does not mean that the party has really changed. It’s obvious that communism has ended, that there was a big breakdown for communism, for the dictatorship of one class over the other, for the bureaucratic system of running the state and central planning and so on.

Q: But you do not see in the end of the East Berlin regime any sign of the end of socialism or the triumph of capitalism?

A: Not as I understand socialism. They may have occupied the name, but what it was in practice was quite different. Democratic socialism is democracy in the sense of the rule of the people and of a social way of dealing with an economy, with a lot of public intervention in it. . . .

Q: Do you think that people are misinterpreting Berlin’s re-emergence as the capital of Germany as the symbol of a return to a nationalist Germany? You think that’s been overblown and that people are putting the wrong symbolism on Berlin?

A: Yes. I think that Berlin never--except for a short time during the First World War--was a centralist capital of Germany. Yet people say Berlin is the symbol for centralism and Nazi time and all the rest. But what is true is that Berlin was the symbol of resistance against National Socialism, that the Berlin (Nazis) never got a majority, that Berlin was a very liberal and open city in the 19th Century. It was an amalgamation point between the two wars, between East and West; (it) was the symbol of the decision for democracy--and the West--in 1948 and 1949. So I cannot see why Berlin is the symbol for centralism or nationalism and so on.

Q: You have to deal with some very serious problems in Berlin now, particularly with East German unemployment, which could be up to 40% to 50%. What sort of steps will be taken to prevent the creation of an underclass of East Germans?

A: The problem is not so much that there might be an underclass of East Germans as that we must push the economic development of the whole East German area. And that means that the unproductive industries and the non-competitive industries must be renewed.

How can they be renewed? By private enterprise--mainly by investment coming in. And the question is how quickly it does and how quickly the old industries go down. That is the main question. So there will be a change; a lot of people will lose their jobs and the question will be how quickly they get a new job in future-oriented industry and modern services.

What is necessary is to do a good industrial policy and a good economic policy, which means subsidies and help to get properties, to make investments and to get low costs of production. That means less taxation--and making a scheme for that. That’s the most important thing now in Germany.

Q: Do you see the Democratic Socialists taking a much more aggressive position than the Christian Democrats in terms of the state role in this transformation?

A: The Christian Democrats have another problem . . . that they can finance it by lending money and not by raising taxation. They have said that, and now the costs of German unity turn out to be much higher--about 100 billion marks. And they have difficulties in getting the money without raising taxation. Everyone in Germany--or nearly everybody--knows that taxation must be raised. But because the (Christian Democrats) have promised not to do that, they now have difficulties in making a real offensive (in) industrial policy and getting higher subsidies for the development of the GDR, and for getting more money to improve the public infrastructure in the GDR.

Q: So you think that the Christian Democrats basically did not come clean--as we would say in English--about the actual costs of reunification?

A: Either they did not have the right estimation of how high the costs were or they just didn’t admit how high they really were.

Q: So you’re saying they were really misleading the German people?

A: In that way, yes. I’m not quite sure whether they knew it before or not.

Q: Do you thus think that taxes will have to be raised much more significantly?

A: Obviously.

Q: And the Christian Democrats are still not admitting this?

A: Yes, not before the elections of Dec. 2.

Q: So maybe Kohl learned something from George Bush?

A: Well, nobody really wants to admit before an election that taxation must be raised. The funny thing is that the majority of people in West Germany are aware that taxation must be raised--and they admit it, they want it, they know it’s necessary.

The election will be decided not so very much in West Germany, because what we know from the polls is that the numbers elected from either party are quite fixed. But the interesting point will be what happens in East Germany and however they decide. And with unemployment--1.4 million--going up, we don’t know yet how they will decide.

Q: Now there’s another issue--the large foreign presence in Germany and particularly in Berlin, where the far-right Republicans got a significant number of votes. You have the problem of people coming from Eastern Europe. Will this issue--managing a multiracial, multicultural society--become more difficult?

A: I don’t think that will be a problem in this campaign. There was a certain situation--in early 1989--when the Republican (votes) came up. . . . (But) compared with the multiracial and multicultural situation of Los Angeles, one really cannot talk about a multiracial and multicultural situation in Berlin.

Q: That’s an interesting comparison. Our society is built to be multiracial. Germany has a different experience with multicultural society.

A: We are just not a multiracial and multicultural society. We are a really pure, good German society, with a German social and cultural heritage. Of course, we have two million foreigners . . . and they have concentrated very much in the cities. In Berlin, we have about 200,000--one-tenth of the West Berlin population . . . but you cannot say it’s a multicultural or multiracial society at all.

Q: What about the impact of the Germans coming from the GDR, Poland or the Soviet Union? Will they have a positive effect on the German economy?

A: I don’t see them having a positive effect on the German economy . . . because we have enough labor. With a bigger market--together with Eastern Germany--there’s labor force enough. So what kind of a positive effect on the economy should they have? I can’t imagine what you mean . . . How can (they) have a positive effect on the economy?

Q: Yet many economists argue that the absorption of the new Germans and of the GDR will mean that your economy will be growing rapidly--say 4% or 5% annually--in the coming years.

A: Why should it? . . . The figure must be much lower . . . the growth of the economy will be even less--1.5% or 2%, 1%; . . . 4% or 5% is too much.

Q: What would be the key restraining factors keeping growth at 1.5% or 2%?

A: Well, there are various factors. . . . I don’t think it’s wise to have growth of that high amount, because it’s not just a question of the figure, it’s much more a question of the quality of growth. The ecological impact of that high amount of growth might be difficult.

Q: Does that reflect a difference between the Democratic Socialists and the Christian Democrats on managing the economy? The Christian Democrats seem to stress growth.

A: They probably do.

Q: So one would expect that if the Democratic Socialists take power in Germany, the qualitative aspects of growth will supplant the quantitative aspects?

A: It would have a higher degree of (qualitative) estimation.

Q: With all the stimulation and growth that will probably take place in Berlin in the immediate future, one of your deputies worried that you didn’t want to become “another Los Angeles.”

A: You cannot compare a city like that--and the structure of a city like that--with a city like Berlin or any city in Germany. We have different traditions of city planning, of land planning.

Q: There could also be other effects. Berlin has been a sort of DMZ, a meeting place of cultures--more fun-loving, more creative than most of the other German cities, which are quite dull. Some people fear that the new Berlin will take on the same character of those other German cities.

A: (Laughing) I don’t think other German cities are dull. They are smaller than most American cities and Berlin. The main advantage of Berlin was that it was so big, that it was unique in terms of its political and social situation, and therefore it was quite open and quite heavily subsidized--and still is. (Berlin) is even now the youngest city. That is what made it so interesting and so lively. And because of its geographical situation in the middle of Germany, it will be an interesting city.

Q: You don’t see Berlin becoming dull?

A: Not as calm as the big West German cities.

Q: United Berlin will also have to deal with a lot of Germany’s past, since so much of it took place in Berlin, particularly the eastern part. Yet the East Germans built over Hitler’s bunker. There is going to be a lot of pressure on you to preserve some of the history of the Third Reich. Do you think part of your administration will be to make sure that part of German history does not get obliterated?

A: We will mind these places of history and we will preserve them. That’s a high interest of young people in our society. We know from the Gestapo area near the wall where a lot of people go, and we have a kind of exhibition to remind them of the Holocaust and of all that. We will preserve that. We haven’t decided if we will preserve Hitler’s bunkers--that’s not so interesting.

Q: One part of the peculiarly German past is racism, and it doesn’t seem to have totally gone away. Some in West Germany are worried that many East Germans have displayed anti-black, anti-Asian, anti-Jewish attitudes, perhaps because they hadn’t been taught about the Holocaust and the legacy of racism. As mayor of Berlin, is there anything you can do about it?

A: I don’t think the majority--only a very small minority--of GDR youngsters have anti-Semitic or nationalist feelings. The GDR . . . made this Holocaust proposal in Parliament that expressed guilt about it. They said it was their history as well. We will discuss these things and, after a while, that will normalize things in the GDR as it did in West Germany.