logo
Germany 'rested on its laurels' too long, report finds

Germany 'rested on its laurels' too long, report finds

High levels of governance have masked a slow decline in Germany, with political, economic, and social fractures 'festering over years', a new scientific report released only weeks ahead of the February 23 parliamentary elections concludes.
'It has become clear that Germany rested on its laurels for far too long', the BGI Germany Report on the country's governance performance says. It is based on the Berggruen Governance Index (BGI) and was conducted by researchers from the Los Angeles-based Berggruen Institute think tank, the Luskin School of Public Affairs at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), and the Hertie School, a German university.
In their report ' Germany 2025 - Slow decline in governance performance erupts into crisis of government as geopolitics worsen ' the researchers conclude that the country's government and administrative systems have appeared increasingly sclerotic and hesitant to adopt necessary changes. Effective, often painful reforms are urgently needed, but political and economic constraints make them difficult to implement, the researchers write.
The 2024 BGI measures democratic accountability, delivery of public goods and state capacity on a scale from 0 to 100. It analyses the years from 2000 to 2021. According to the report, Germany has lost ground on all three measures, with structural problems festering since the 'deceptively benign' years of the chancellorship of Angela Merkel (2005-2021). The Democracy Accountability Index score, for example, slid to 93 in 2021 from a near perfect 99 at the beginning of the century.
The data 'suggests that some of Germany's state capacity and democratic accountability challenges were masked by economic growth, driven by the success of its export-oriented model during the 2010s', the report says. Chief among Germany's challenges are economic troubles that have worsened in recent years, largely stemming from a lack of public investment during that period in areas such as digitalization and transport infrastructure.
On February 23, Germans go to the polls early after the ruling three-party coalition consisting of the Social Democrats (SPD), the Greens and the liberal Free Democrats (FDP) collapsed in November. Intra-government fighting over how to get the country's ailing economy back on track was a main factor of the break-up.
At the same time, social trust is declining in Europe's largest economy. However, a possible new government under the conservative CDU/CSU alliance and its candidate for the chancellorship, Friedrich Merz, seems poised to exacerbate divisions rather than resolving them, the researchers say.
The economic difficulties heighten uncertainty and discontent, the report argues – with migration emerging as the other major flashpoint. Rhetoric on economic scarcity is used to highlight tensions over migration, which are exploited by both the extreme right and left. That debate has been exacerbated by a recent deadly stabbing in which a migrant facing deportation from Germany is the main suspect.
Yet immigration is essential to Germany's future growth, the BGI report says: 'Any future government will have to attempt to reconcile anti-immigrant attitudes with the social reality of integration and the economic necessity of attracting foreign-born workers.'
Merz is promising a hard line on migration in case of an election victory. Despite provoking outrage from other political parties, Merz on Wednesday (January 29) pushed through a vote in parliament on proposals for tightening immigration controls. 'Current asylum and immigration policy jeopardizes the security of the people and the confidence of all of society in the state,' the text of the motion by the CDU/CSU says.
The passed proposal includes a request to the German government to turn back asylum seekers at Germany's borders. But even more incendiary in German politics has been Merz's willingness to break long-standing taboos and use votes from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) in order to pass the motion. All long-established parties in the lower house of the German parliament, the Bundestag, had previously said they would not work with the AfD, with many Germans alarmed at the rise of the party in recent years in a country still scarred by its Nazi past.
According to the latest opinion polls by the five major polling institutes, the conservative CDU/CSU is clearly in the lead, polling at between 28 and 34 per cent. Second comes the AfD with 19 to 21 per cent, followed by the SPD with 15 to 19 per cent. The current German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is a member of the SPD. The Greens are at 12 to 15 per cent in the opinion polls, while the FDP this time may not clear the 5-per-cent-threshold necessary to enter the Bundestag.
----------------------------------------------
This text and the accompanying material (photos and graphics) are an offer from the Democracy News Alliance, a close co-operation between Agence France-Presse (AFP, France), Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata (ANSA, Italy), The Canadian Press (CP, Canada), Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa, Germany) and PA Media (PA, UK). All recipients can use this material without the need for a separate subscription agreement with one or more of the participating agencies. This includes the recipient's right to publish the material in own products.
The DNA content is an independent journalistic service that operates separately from the other services of the participating agencies. It is produced by editorial units that are not involved in the production of the agencies' main news services. Nevertheless, the editorial standards of the agencies and their assurance of completely independent, impartial and unbiased reporting also apply here.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem says "we're not going to let a repeat of 2020 happen" amid L.A. crackdown
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem says "we're not going to let a repeat of 2020 happen" amid L.A. crackdown

CBS News

time34 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem says "we're not going to let a repeat of 2020 happen" amid L.A. crackdown

Kristi Noem says "we are not going to let a repeat of 2020 happen" amid L.A. crackdown Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Sunday that the administration won't allow a "repeat of 2020" to occur after President Trump called for the National Guard to enforce order in the Los Angeles area amid protests over activity by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. "We're not going to let a repeat of 2020 happen," Noem said on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," referring to the unrest in Minneapolis following the killing of George Floyd. At the time, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz made the controversial decision to deploy the state's National Guard amid the 2020 riots in Minneapolis, but Noem on Sunday criticized Walz for what she said were "very bad decisions," claiming he "let his city burn for days on end." Mr. Trump also deployed the National Guard in June 2020 to Washington, D.C, to quell protests. And as California's Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom urged that the state had things under control after protests broke out in L.A. in reaction to ICE operations in recent days, Noem claimed Newsom "has proven that he makes bad decisions." Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," June 8, 2025. CBS News "The president knows that [Newsom] makes bad decisions, and that's why the President chose the safety of this community over waiting for Gov. Newsom to get some sanity," Noem added. "And that's one of the reasons why these National Guard soldiers are being federalized so they can use their special skill set to keep peace." Mr. Trump signed a memo Saturday using Title 10 authority to order the deployment of at least 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles County following clashes between immigration authorities and demonstrators in Paramount, California, and large-scale protests elsewhere in the county. It marks the first time since 1965 that a president has "sent troops into a state without a state request," said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program. Newsom claimed in a post on X that the move by the Trump administration was "purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions," adding that "there is currently no unmet need." "The federal government is taking over the California National Guard and deploying 2,000 soldiers in Los Angeles — not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle," Newsom said in another post, adding "Don't give them one." The California governor called Mr. Trump and the two spoke for about 40 minutes Saturday night, a spokesperson for Newsom told CBS News. Noem said the National Guard soldiers being engaged Sunday are "specifically trained for this type of crowd situation" and will "provide safety around buildings and to those that are engaged in peaceful protests, and also to our law enforcement officers so they can continue their daily work." "They're there at the direction of the president in order to keep peace and allow people to be able to protest, but also to keep law and order," Noem said, adding that "unfortunately, we've seen some violent protests happen, and that's why these National Guard soldiers are being utilized to help with some security in some areas." Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Saturday that "if violence continues, active-duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized," adding that "they are on high alert." On the issue of sending in active-duty military personnel to police a domestic disturbance, Noem said she's hopeful "that we work with local leaders that would do their jobs," saying in L.A., the mayor "has refused to recognize the dangerous situation that she's perpetuating." Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass told KCAL late Saturday that she is "confident in our law enforcement partners here in Los Angeles, that we can handle the situation" saying "there is no need for 2,000 National Guard troops." When pressed on the idea of sending U.S. troops, Noem said "ICE and Homeland Security are running these operations right now," while noting that Mr. Trump "makes the decisions." Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat who also appeared on "Face the Nation" Sunday, defended the ability of governors to "make their own decisions based on the situation." "When you look at where the American people are, they want to make sure you follow the law and that there's due process, and you don't want to inflame things by threatening to bring in the Marines or deporting people based on a mistake," Klobuchar said. The developments come as a new CBS News poll, conducted just prior to Saturday's protests in L.A., found that more than half of Americans approve of the Trump administration's deportation program, though large percentages of Americans continue to say it is not acceptable if legal residents are mistakenly deported as part of the program.

The Legal Issues Surrounding Trump's Plan to Use Troops to Suppress Protests
The Legal Issues Surrounding Trump's Plan to Use Troops to Suppress Protests

New York Times

time40 minutes ago

  • New York Times

The Legal Issues Surrounding Trump's Plan to Use Troops to Suppress Protests

Setting up a rare use of military force on domestic soil, President Trump ordered the Pentagon on Saturday night to send at least 2,000 National Guard troops to respond to protests in Los Angeles set off by his immigration crackdown. Mr. Trump has long mused about using military force on domestic soil to crush violent protests or riots, fight crime and hunt for undocumented migrants — a move that his aides talked him out of during his first term. Between his two presidencies, he said that he would do so without the consent of state governors if he returned to power. The order is a significant step in that direction, but for now it stops short of invoking the most expansive power Mr. Trump could claim a right to use. It remains unclear how matters will play out on the ground — and, potentially, in court. Here is a closer look at the legal and policy issues. What did Trump's order do? Mr. Trump called up National Guard troops to be put under federal control. He authorized Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to use troops to protect immigration enforcement agents, buildings and functions from interference by protesters. As justification, the White House cited recent protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles. The order called for at least 2,000 National Guard troops to be deployed for at least 60 days. Mr. Trump also authorized Mr. Hegseth to use regular federal troops 'as necessary' to augment the work of the federalized National Guard units. The National Guard consists of state-based military forces, largely part-time troops who have separate, full-time civilian jobs. Normally, each state's governor controls its guard and can direct it to deal with a disaster or civil disorder. But under certain circumstances, federal law allows the president to take control of a state's guard. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Trump's Response to L.A. Protests: What We Know
Trump's Response to L.A. Protests: What We Know

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Trump's Response to L.A. Protests: What We Know

President Donald Trump announced his is deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles in response to protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arresting people the federal government alleges are undocumented immigrants. In his memo deploying the National Guard, Trump left the door open for the Pentagon to deploy active duty military to Los Angeles. Trump wrote that 'the Secretary of Defense may employ any other members of the regular Armed Forces as necessary to augment and support the protection of Federal functions and property in any number determined appropriate in his discretion.' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated that the Department of Defense would mobilize active duty Marines stationed at Camp Pendleton 'if violence continues,' describing the Marines there as 'on high alert.' The last time Marines were deployed to assist with law enforcement was in 1992 when George Bush, responding to the California governor's request, sent Marines from Camp Pendleton to subdue riots following the acquittal of four white police officers who severely beat Rodney King, a Black man pulled over for a traffic violation. California Gov. Gavin Newsom responded to Hegseth's words by writing in a post on X, formerly Twitter, 'The Secretary of Defense is now threatening to deploy active-duty Marines on American soil against its own citizens. This is deranged behavior.' Reacting to Trump's order to deploy the National Guard, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass told KTLA on Sunday, 'I have talked to officials high up in his administration, and I expressed to them that things were not out of control in the City of Los Angeles. Paramount had some issues, but I doubt very seriously that there is a need for the National Guard there either.' 'To me, this is just political,' Bass added. Newsom said Trump's decision move was 'purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions [and] erode public trust.' As of early Sunday morning, Bass and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said the National Guard was not yet deployed in the city. 'Just to be clear, the National Guard has not been deployed in the City of Los Angeles,' Bass said in a statement issued around midnight local time. But that did not stop the president from claiming victory and taking credit. 'Great job by the National Guard in Los Angeles after two days of violence, clashes and unrest,' he wrote on Truth Social a couple hours after Bass' statement. 'These Radical Left protests, by instigators and often paid troublemakers, will NOT BE TOLERATED.' NBC4 Los Angeles reported at 8 A.M. local time that National Guard troops had arrived in the city. Protests began Friday as ICE executed immigration raids at several workplaces in the Los Angeles area, including the city of Paramount in south L.A. County, where ICE arrested at least 44 individuals for alleged immigration violations, and Compton. Police arrested more than a dozen people during the protests for allegedly impeding federal agents. Some protesters, according to Reuters, threw what looked like chunks of concrete at law enforcement who responded with tear gas, pepper spray, and 'flash-bang' grenades. 'We will continue to arrest anyone who interferes with federal law enforcement,' U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli wrote on X, naming four individuals arrested by federal agents and attaching their photos. 'Now they know that they cannot go to anywhere in this country where our people are, and try to kidnap our workers, our people — they cannot do that without an organized and fierce resistance,' protester Ron Gochez, 44, told Reuters. On Friday, another protest took place surrounding a federal building in downtown L.A. where protesters believed detainees were being held after showing up for their ICE check-in appointments. Attorneys for those detained said immigrants who came to their check-ins were escorted to the basement of the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and detained. Attorney Lizbeth Mateo told CBS News that a married couple — including a U.S. citizen — and their children were held overnight in a room without beds and with only limited access to food and water. The wife along with the children were released Wednesday evening because she required medical attention for her high-risk pregnancy. Her husband, an immigrant who Mateo said previously received a stay of removal preventing him from being deported, was still in custody as of early Friday. Bass said Sunday that immigrants who were detained downtown have likely been transported to an ICE facility in Adelanto. 'This is something I've never seen before,' Mateo said. 'Under the first Trump administration, I represented clients with very difficult cases, but never anything like this. Under any other circumstance, he would have been released.' In Paramount, federal agents deployed non-lethal munitions toward protesters, said L.A. County Sheriff Robert Luna, according to CBS News. 'We will protect your right to peacefully protest, but we will not tolerate violence or destruction of property,' Luna told reporters. 'I urge the community to approach the situation peacefully, as we do not want anyone to be harmed.' The sheriff's department stated that it 'was not involved in any federal law enforcement operations' and instead 'was focused solely on traffic management and crowd control.' Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown Law professor, wrote that because Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act in his Saturday night order, the National Guard troops 'will not be allowed to engage in ordinary law enforcement activities.' Instead, he said, they will only be able to 'provide a form of force protection and other logistical support for ICE personnel.' Anonymous White House sources confirmed to Reuters that Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, which allows the president to deploy U.S. military forces to enforce laws and quell civil disorder. The last time it was invoked was 1992 during the Los Angeles riots at the California governor's request. 'There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,' Vladeck wrote. Instead of using the Insurrection Act, Trump invoked Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services, which grants the president authority to deploy members of the National Guard into federal service in certain situations, including during 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' He justified his actions by stating in his order: 'To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' Essentially, he is saying the protesters' interference with ICE's immigration roundups amount to a rebellion against the government. It's important to note, however, that California officials did not request federal support. 'For the federal government to take over the California National Guard, without the request of the governor, to put down protests is truly chilling,' Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley, told The New York Times. 'It is using the military domestically to stop dissent.' The White House previously considered invoking the Insurrection Act at the U.S.-Mexico border but has not yet done so. During his first term, Trump deployed the National Guard when he asked several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. in response to protests following the murder of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis. While some governors did send their troops, those who did not comply with Trump's request were not forced to do so. This time, however, Trump is clearly going against Newsom's wishes in deploying California's National Guard. More from Rolling Stone The Biggest Boondoggles in Trump's Big Beautiful Bill Donald Trump Is Destroying the Economy and Waging War on the Poor Trump Moves to Deploy National Guard to L.A. Over ICE Protests Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store