At this moment, major German politicians are arguing publicly about the basic structure of the German state. In October 2003, the German legislature created a federalism commission, with top leaders of the two major parties as co-chairs, to investigate “the modernization of the state structure.”

As in the United States, more conservative politicians say they want to give the provinces more independence, while the liberals see central control as more efficient and democratic. Although federalism sounds like one of those political subjects that make people sleepy, it seems remarkable to me that German political leaders are willing to rethink the structure of their state, rather than merely shout slogans at each other, like “states’ rights.”

This discussion of federalism may lead to significant decisions about the relationship between provinces and central state.

The question of how to divide political power between the central government and the provinces is especially important in a country where the state makes so many decisions that affect people’s daily lives. Closing time for retail stores is regulated by the state, and only recently have stores been allowed to stay open in the evenings and on Saturday afternoons. Further liberalization of opening times is coming, and it is one of the issues over which individual provinces would like to have more control. Schools are also controlled much more by the national government here than in the United States. Now that German universities for the first time are considering charging tuition, the provinces want to make this decision themselves.

The division of power between central government and individual provinces has become complicated by Germany’s membership in the European Union. As more decisions are being made at the international level, the power of the provinces is further reduced. One of the arguments for a clearer demarcation between the power of the national and the provincial governments has been the need for Germany “to speak with one voice” in EU councils.

Many issues which cause great controversy in American national politics are decided in Europe at the international level, such as subsidies for farmers, acceptable levels of national deficits and the banning of the death penalty.

Of course, the discussion of federalism is complicated by personal power struggles within the parties, by regional differences and by political positioning for the next election. The tense relationship between western and eastern Germans, about which I will write in a later column, brings distrust into discussions about local versus national control.

Germans take for granted national state interest and intervention in major issues, which many Americans see as private. The long-standing national discussion in the U.S. over regulations, which seems to have been won in recent years by Republicans who are busy rolling back regulations on business practices, is also a controversy here, but beginning from very different assumptions. The German state decides on how recycling should be accomplished, the way buildings should look and how health care is organized. Europeans, in general, believe that the state, representing all the people, should have the power to set boundaries on business practices that affect the public.

While opponents of regulation in the United States decry such state powers as “socialism,” here they are seen as more democratic. Instead of allowing giant corporations to make decisions that affect the public in the name of “free enterprise,” public representatives can set the ground rules. The freedom of the economically powerful is curtailed, while the rights of the population are increased.

Thus the federalism discussion is especially important here, since the state has such wide power over public life. As an American who cherishes those freedoms of opinion, expression and behavior which I have long associated uniquely with the United States, I have often felt constrained in Germany. The history of authoritarian thinking in Germany makes me doubly skeptical of the state. But every day I see here not only the greater efficiency of state regulation, but also the greater public good. If one can trust the state to operate in the interests of the whole population, then I would rather have my representatives decide publicly how much pollution is acceptable than allow the managers of a multinational chemical company to make that decision behind closed doors.

Despite the claims of American free marketers, the millionaire managers of American businesses have demonstrated in recent years much more greed than public spirit. At the moment, I would rather bet on the state.

Steve Hochstadt lives in Lewiston and teaches history at Bates College. He is temporarily teaching in Germany and can be reached at shochsta@bates.edu.

Copy the Story Link