Germany at a crossroads: coalition agreement or expansion of state power?

Responsibility for Germany. This is the title of the coalition agreement [1].

That sounds like a title that would also work as a slogan on any election poster. The logos of the CDU, CSU and SPD are elegantly placed above the slogan. At first glance, the cover page of the 146-page paper gives the impression of an image brochure. If you carefully work your way through the small print of the entire work up to the last page, this first impression remains. Terms such as sustainability, innovation and resilience paired with modern Anglicisms such as the once-only principle, digital-only and one-stop store jump out at the interested reader line by line. Talented copywriters were at work here. Chapeau!

Two handy tips for all those who want to get information at the source: Pay attention to the exact wording! The phrase "we will do something" has a different meaning to "we want to do something". The latter only represents a vague intention in contrast to formulations such as "we will make it obligatory". If you are interested in specific topics, it is advisable to search the pdf with the key combination "ctrl + f" and the corresponding search term. The word climate, for example, is found 80 times. I would like to reduce my commentary analysis to two aspects of the coalition agreement that I consider to be particularly explosive and dangerous. What's more, I consider at least one passage in the image brochure to be insidious in the truest democratic sense. Artificial intelligence and digitalization A blessing for some, a curse for others! The topics of artificial intelligence and digitalization divide society. This is shown by the reactions to the "devilish experiment" [2] by Markus Langemann with the probably best-known AI ChatGTP.

This platform has been working on its own format for years "Digital thinkers" with both the opportunities and the dangers of AI. Opinions may and should be divided here. However, we ask for your understanding that we react indignantly when this portal is accused of lacking competence or even integrity on this topic of all things. But back to the coalition agreement.

The latter also deals intensively with AI, mostly in linguistic combination with the digitalization of all areas of life - from the digital euro to digital identity. The upcoming government is linking the two topics as shown here on page 48: We are strengthening the financial administration with greater digitalization and artificial intelligence. At the same time, we will gradually make the digital submission of tax returns mandatory.

Interestingly, possible dangers regarding the violation of fundamental and civil rights are almost completely ignored. On page 56, for example, it says: Every citizen is required to have a citizen account and a digital identity. Mandatory. Not an option, not voluntary. The new government is turning the path to digitalization into a civic duty. The coalition agreement is linguistically insidious on page 49. After emphasizing freedom of choice in payment transactions in the introduction and also reassuringly announcing that cash will remain a common means of payment (which should actually be a matter of course), we read the following sentence: We support a digital euro that provides real added value in both wholesale and retail, complements cash, protects consumer privacy, can be used free of charge by consumers and does not impair financial stability. After the emphasis on financial freedom of choice, support for the digital euro is immediately emphasized, which will in all seriousness protect privacy. That is brazen. But it gets even more frightening, as you can read on page 49.

We will create an administrative, constitutionally compliant wealth investigation procedure with the aim of seizing suspicious assets of significant value where doubts about a legal acquisition cannot be dispelled (Suspicious Wealth Order). The last quote is particularly dystopian, as these harmless-sounding words conceal a reversal of the burden of proof. It translates as "When in doubt, give the state prosecutor the benefit of the doubt!"

Just as Nancy Faeser dreamed of a reversal of the burden of proof in disciplinary and civil service law on March 16, 2022 [3], the state now wants to apply this principle to private property. Is the gold ring, the painting, the old golf really yours? Please provide proof of legal acquisition, otherwise the state will be forced to seize the suspicious asset. Cash is king? Not in the brave new coalition world. But it can be even more insidious. Dealing with disinformation and insidiousness The deliberate dissemination of false factual claims and the publication of alleged fake news is to be prosecuted and punished in defense of democracy. This part of the coalition agreement is currently the subject of the most heated public debate.

This plan is also brazen because it was devised by parties and people who have demonstrably and repeatedly lied through their teeth in recent years. From corona to false election promises. This plan is also frightening because it is reminiscent of an Orwellian Ministry of Truth. There is hope that more and more self-proclaimed leading media are rebelling and taking a critical stance. But see for yourself at the source. The passage is on page 123. I would like to conduct a linguistic experiment with you before you do so. Anyone who deliberately makes or disseminates a false statement of fact that is capable of seriously damaging the free democratic basic order or the reputation of the Federal Government, its officials or the civil society associations behind the government shall, unless an even more severe penalty is indicated, be punished with up to two years in prison and, if he makes or disseminates the statement publicly, not less than three months. Anyone who unknowingly makes a false statement of fact is liable to a prison sentence of up to three months and a fine as a minimum. Do you think such a law is possible? Probably yes. Does it say that on page 123? No, it's not there. But it could be there, because Germany is moving in this direction. So my quote is fake news. I think that's excusable here because a language experiment was announced. However, this quote can be found elsewhere in almost identical form. I have merely replaced old terms with modern words. That's what people who write image brochures do.

You can find the original quote as a legal text in the sources. According to Wikipedia, the law served to restrict the right to freedom of expression and to criminalize all critical statements. The original is paragraph 3 of the "Law against Insidious Attacks on the State and Party and for the Protection of Party Uniforms" of December 20, 1934.

It is better known as the Treachery Act [4].