Contemporary Crises, 1 (1977), pp. 341-357 Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam. Printed in the Netherlands THE RETURN OF THE SUPPRESSED: McCARTHYISM IN WEST GERMANY* MILTON MANKOFF AND MONICA JACOBS Not one but two spectres are haunting Western Europe today. The one receiving most attention in the United States is so-called Euro-Communism, the attempt by Communist and some leftist socialist parties in France, Italy, Portugal and Spain to forge oppositional movements to advanced capitalism which avoid the pitfalls of both Stalinism and contemporary social democracy. The other spectre, a mounting effort by forces ranging from the far right to the center to contain Euro-Communism has largely gone unnoticed in the Western news media. Occasional reports of neo-fascist terrorism in Italy, France, and Spain or an assemblage of aging Nazi sympathizers in Munich protesting the continuation of war crimes trials appear as anachronistic remnants of an historically irrelevant past. The memory of and popular revulsion toward fascism throughout the region has made the threat of a return of traditional fascism seem most unlikely even in the wake of economic recession and the increased tempo of ideological conflict. Nevertheless, if fascism does not appear to be at the gates, a more benign but also more "legitimate" and effective form of authoritarian conservatism may be rearing its head once again. This tendency is most apparent and ominous in a country that recently has gained a measure of respectability on the world stage: West Germany. For the past five years, under the aegis of legally constituted authorities at the federal, state, and local levels, a variant of America's infamous McCarthyism has been unfolding in the Federal Republic. The linchpin in the repressive apparatus has been the institution of "Berufsverbot" or job-ban, a policy which has resulted in the dismissal of several hundred to several thousand civil service employees, investigations of hundreds of thousands of others, and the political intimidation of a significant proportion of the West German population [ 1 ]. Copyright Milton Mankoff, 1972 Queens College, New York, N. Y., U.S.A. New York University, ,New York, N. Y., U.S.A. 342 The Origins of Berufsverbot The policy of Berufsverbot began in January 1972 when the Minister Presidents of the eleven German states and the Federal Chancellor, Willy Brandt, issued the so-called Hamburg decrees which sought to purge the civil service of persons "antagonistic" to the Constitution. The pretext for this action was the activity of an anarchist sect led by Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof. The "Baader-Meinhof gang," as it was dubbed by the media, was depicted as representing a tendency on the German new left which combined the worst features of the American Weatherpeople and the Symbionese Liberation Army: a penchant for rhetorical hyperbole and terror. However, this group and their successors have never encompassed more than 200 persons by the most pessimistic official estimates [2]. Moreover, they have been universally condemned by organized leftists. The logical connection between the existence of a few urban terrorists and the need to purify the 3.5 million person civil service of "anti- constitutional" elements was never made sufficiently clear, but it was argued by the government offfcial involved that many "graduates" of the university based new left of the 1960's were seeking and gaining entrance into the civil service and therefore were in a position to undermine the security of the German state. This process of subversion would be long-term and more subtle than the tactics of Baader-Meinhof, but a fifth column in the civil service would provide fertile ground for the spread of "anti-democratic" ideas, the kind of ideas that ultimately lead to terrorism [3]. The language of the Hamburg decrees, in its vagueness and totalitarian concern with all aspects of the prospective or current civil service employees' existence, provided an opening for gross violations of civil liberties and mushrooming paranoia. Principle 1 stated that "only those persons may be appointed as public officials who can at all times guarantee support for the free basic democratic order according to the Constitution, and public officials are obliged to actively defend this basic order both in office and out of office." Other provisions of the new policy were that "an applicant who engages in anticonstitutional activities ..." or "... belongs to an organiza- tion pursuing goals antagonistic to the Constitution..." or does not demonstrate "by his total behavior" endorsement of the free democratic basic order according to the Constitution shall either not be employed by the civil service or be dismissed if he or she is already a member. Moreover, "doubt" as to whether an applicant or civil service employee is loyal shall "As a rule.., justify rejection..." of the applicant or employee. Needless to say, the necessity to guarantee "at all times" by one's "total behavior" and "active" defense, support of any principle places extra- ordinary burdens on a citizen. To support in such a manner the "free 343 democratic basic order according to the Constitution" of the Federal Republic of Germany is particularly difficult, owing to the ambiguity of that document and the interpretation of "free basic democratic order." To comprehend the dilemmas involved a brief discussion of the recent political and constitutional history of West Germany is required. After the defeat of Nazism the allied occupation powers sought to reconstruct Germany in a way that would prevent a resurgence of fascism. The fact that the Soviet Union as well as the United States, Britain and France were involved in postwar reconstruction meant that conflict would arise as to what kinds of structural reforms would be most able to insure a nonfascist Germany. The Soviets were most sensitive to the need for economic transformation -the destruction of the power of landed aristo- crats and big businessmen. They felt that these ruling classes provided the impetus for German nationalism and militarism. The Western allies on the other hand, were primarily oriented toward policies which would not undermine private enterprise. While aware of pressing social welfare needs in a society devastated by war, and the abuses of many German industrialists, they viewed denazification as an essentially political problem. The proposed solution was to rid the political system of profascist elements and provide a democratic political structure in a country with fragile democratic traditions. The division of Germany into Soviet and Western zones offered the opportunity for each side in the conflict to institute its own answer to the problem of denazification. In West Germany this ultimately meant the development of the Basic Law, a 1949 Constitution which went far beyond the civil libertarian guarantees of most other Western countries. It also included some provisions to satisfy those liberal and leftist forces in the nation that believed in a welfare state and the necessity of making private enterprise compatible with the public interest. All constitutions, even the best, are beset by internal contradictions. The Basic Law exemplifies this problem. An impressive array of ~Basic Rights", e.g. liberty, equality before the law, freedom of religion, assembly, association, movement, privacy, expression, and choice of occupation, were guaranteed to the citizen. The Constitution also included a set of social obligations by the state to protect the children of the community, supervise education, and insure that both natural resources and private property were protected but "served the public weal" as well. The right of expropriation was explicitly sanctioned in the event that the private ownership of property did not serve the public interest. In addition, citizens of the Federal Republic were given "the right to resist any person or persons seeking to abolish constitutional order, should no other remedy be possible." Finally, a Catch 22 appeared. Article 18 of the Constitution stated that whoever abuses the Basic Rights "in order to combat the free basic democratic order, 344 shall forfeit these basic rights." The determination of the existence of such abuse and the extent of forfeiture of basic rights was to be determined by the Federal Constitutional Court. It does not take a vivid imagination to recognize that German citizens could be subject to forfeiture of basic rights if they used those rights to support some aspects of the Constitution while ignoring other aspects which worked at cross-purposes. The ambiguities inherent in the Constitution did not make it possible for fascism to claim constitutional respectability. However, advocates of substantive political and economic democracy, i.e. those favoring socialization of industry, wealth redistribution, political decentralization and the continual accountability of elected representatives to the citizenry, were able to vie for constitutional legitimacy with those who preferred only formal political democracy, i.e. a minimalist state which did not interfere with the prerogatives of capitalists and guaranteed a multi-party system with regular elections and civil liberties. The massive demonstrations in the late 1960's directed against the arch-conservative press lord, Axel Springer, whose monopolization of the news media led to massive propaganda for anti-civil libertarian policies, represented a classic case of the results of alternative interpretations of the Constitution. Springer argued that he was exercising freedom of the press in conducting vituperous campaigns against liberals and leftists; new left critics believed he was abusing that freedom in order to undermine social welfare policies and promote neofascism. To resolve the impasse created by the vagueness and contradictory elements of the Constitution, the first post-war government in the Federal Republic sought to develop a more clearcut definition of acceptable political attitudes and behavior. The result was a codification of what support for the "free democratic basic order" entailed, one that stressed certain aspects of the Constitution more than others.