Politics in challenge
Contents
Politics in challenge
It is mainly because of this deep dimension that the issue is gaining rapid explosiveness. The question »What to do? (preferably also in the past tense, »What should have been done?«) therefore also determines the debate in society as a whole: As early as 2012, German authorities drew up the scenario of a worldwide Corona outbreak. Should they have been better prepared for the current crisis? The state governments are divided and inconsistent when it comes to deciding how strict the regulations should be, for example in the matter of the contact ban; an example is the back and forth of the Lower Saxony state government in the week before Easter (keyword »visit permit«). But also the reference to other catastrophes and crises such as the Sars pandemic, Fukushima or the tsunami is mentioned: Should Germany have learned from these disasters? Supposedly, the commentators are mainly concerned with wrong decisions made in the Corona crisis (and of course those made in the past). Whoever is in political responsibility is hopefully aware of this central challenge: What is right, what is wrong? Can I go along with this decision? How will I look at my behaviour in the future? – these questions illustrate the dimensions in which political decisions now move.
And it becomes clear how deeply existentially the corona crisis affects us as a society. The measures we are currently experiencing to combat the effects of Covid19 interfere with personal freedom in many ways. It is particularly problematic when all the aids, instruments, laws, regulations and orders are merely an expression of the thinking of the authoritarian state. An open society therefore needs the debate, which is currently being conducted only rather cautiously. The German Ethics Council, a council of experts appointed by the president of the Bundestag, therefore calls on politicians to speak more openly about the end of pandemic restrictions: »It may be too early for loosenings, but it is never too early for a public discussion about perspectives.« (Peter Dabrok, Chairman of the Ethics Council, NDR, 07.04.2020) The discussion should not primarily be about a point in time, but about what is factually and socially necessary in the future.
The individual level of everyday life (»How do I behave properly?«) and the political level of politics and society (»Security versus Freedom«), however, fade away at a neuralgic point where the topic acquired an existential acuteness: when dealing with the decision on life and death.