NEWS ANALYSIS : Political Ploy Led Germany Into Turmoil : Confrontation: Chancellor Kohl and his party tried using asylum-seeker issue against their opposition. But the attempt backfired.

The government’s prolonged delay before confronting the right-wing violence that now grips Germany was, in part, the result of a calculated political tactic by Chancellor Helmut Kohl and his Christian Democrats that ended in colossal failure.

The tactic not only fell short of its intended goal but contributed to the present, heightened social tensions and the loss of much of Germany’s international goodwill.

The strategy was finally abandoned completely only last week after an arson attack claimed the lives of three Turkish nationals in the north German town of Moelln.

At the heart of the Christian Democrats’ plan was an attempt to embarrass the main opposition Social Democrats by exposing their internal disarray on the sensitive, emotional issue of asylum seekers.

Many rank-and-file Social Democrats, sensing public frustration at the growing number of foreigners entering the country, urged their fellow members to join government parties in backing the constitutional amendment needed to tighten Germany’s criteria for political asylum--a move that would bring it into line with its Western European partners.

But the party’s powerful ideological left balked. It cited Germany’s historical obligation and argued that the country must retain the constitution’s Article 16, which gives anyone the right to declare political asylum and remain in Germany until his claim is investigated.

Only two weeks ago did the party finally come together and agree at a special party conference to back the amendment. Because a two-thirds parliamentary vote is required to amend the constitution, the government needs the Social Democrats’ support to make the change.

More than 750,000 foreigners have taken advantage of the liberal wording to enter Germany since 1990 began--the overwhelming majority of them trying to escape poverty rather than political persecution. The influx has intensified an already acute housing shortage and cost the government $2.5 billion annually in welfare and legal payments at a time when Germans are struggling to finance the unification of their country. Both facts aggravated social tensions.

According to those who follow the Byzantine nature of Germany’s internal politics, Kohl and key party allies quickly recognized the fast-evaporating public tolerance for asylum seekers, as well as the Social Democrats’ divisions. By adapting a high-profile, confrontational stance on the asylum-seekers issue, the Christian Democrats believed, these analysts say, that they could show voters their own desire to change the constitution, while spotlighting the Social Democrats as a divided party obstructing the will of the public majority.

Whenever the change finally came, the Christian Democrats would be heroes and the Social Democrats dunces.

“In the back of Kohl’s mind and the minds of some others there was the idea that this was a real election campaign issue,” commented Udo Bergdoll, who reports from Bonn for the respected Sueddeutsche Zeitung.

But, gradually, the plan unraveled. Voters, angry at official squabbling and inaction on such an important issue, blamed both the government and opposition. And to the horror of all mainstream parties, including Christian Democrats, an increasing number of Germans deserted them all, choosing instead to vote for far right-wing parties.

With this new support, extremist parties won enough votes to enter the legislatures of Schleswig-Holstein and Baden-Wuerttemberg last April.

More importantly, the sense of official drift and the sudden appeal of the far right generated a new mood in the country--a mood that, in many ways, offered a degree of tacit approval as the attacks on asylum seekers and other foreigners grew.

This mood, so visible during a week of riots against foreigners in Rostock last summer and in the southeastern town of Hoyerswerda a year earlier, went largely unchallenged by the three government parties--apparently worried about losing further support to the right wing.

Only the country’s president, Richard von Weizsaecker, took the trouble to repeatedly visit the sites of xenophobic attacks and to be photographed sympathizing with victims of assaults.

Although Kohl spoke out against the violence, at no time did he visit a victim of a racist attack or--until three weeks ago--show up at a rally against right-wing violence. One Kohl aide claimed that such symbolic gestures were “not part of the German political culture,” but others accuse him of a gross lapse of political leadership.