Solidarity

"The liberal, secularized state lives on conditions that it cannot guarantee itself." If proof of the validity of this well-known Böckenförde dictum had still been needed, it would have been provided precisely in the Corona crisis. For the sake of freedom, the state is taking a great risk. On the one hand, it can only exist as a free state if the freedom granted to its citizens is regulated by the moral substance of the individual and the homogeneity of society. On the other hand, however, it cannot force these internal regulatory forces by constitutional means without abandoning the freedom it postulates.

 

In uncertain times it becomes clear that freedom is not a matter of course. Normality becomes a privilege. According to Jürgen Habermas, public discourse is developing the values and behavior that the free state needs to live and survive. These democratic virtues are sharpened in a crisis. The solidarity currently shown and experienced by many people is perceived by some as a "silent fall of the wall" (Katrin Sass). For this reason, the choice of words social distancing is not only misleading, but simply wrong. Although the Corona crisis requires physical or spatial distance from each other, it also creates community, emotional closeness and empathy. Being alone does not necessarily mean being lonely. Nevertheless, Sigmund Graff points out: "It takes the first half of one's life to discover that one is not lonely. The second, to revise that discovery." It is precisely in this situation that our contacts become all the more valuable and new paths to each other are opened up with imagination and technology. Solidarity and distance are not per se mutually exclusive. Rather, the wonderful thing about sympathy lies in the possibility of empathy at a distance. Helmuth Plessner identifies the habitus of distance as a virtue of modern society, which is expressed, among other things, in the necessity of tact. The constant balancing of closeness and distance is a principle of human life and the shaping of the world. People keep their distance in order to secure their lives, they manage distances in order to conduct their lives, and they bridge distances in order to create new forms of indirect proximity. There is also a difference between self-chosen, recommended, suffered and prescribed distancing, which must not be lost sight of. This dialectic of proximity and distance distinguishes culture as a human world. If the decision-makers in politics, business and society succeed in orchestrating this area of tension successfully, it will become clear that societies based on solidarity, with their unofficial hymn "You'll never walk alone", will come through the crisis better than societies without solidarity.

 

Decisions under uncertainty are a particular challenge for the rule of law. At the Wingspread Conference held in 1998, scientists, lawyers and politicians agreed that the principle of caution must always apply in situations of great uncertainty. Existential crises give rise to a kind of situational overruling, according to the motto "necessity knows no commandment". At first glance, those in positions of responsibility in politics are confronted with a conflict of objectives that is almost impossible to resolve, as to which values should be given priority in a crisis: freedom or security, money or life, nation state or community of states. A more intensive analysis, however, comes to the conclusion that crisis management may require only a temporary shift in priorities. Freedom is a high value, but there are legitimate reasons to restrict it in the event of a threat, taking into account proportionality. In the case of the Corona crisis, this is even constitutionally required due to the state's duty to protect life, even though some critics already see themselves in a "virocracy". At the same time, however, it must be acknowledged that without a functioning economy, a life-securing health system cannot be maintained. Similarly, when the epidemic broke out, individual states protected themselves in a national affection and only then, from a more stable position, helped other states. It is important that the crisis-related measures, regulations and laws are issued with an adequate expiration date.

 

Each state pursues a different country and culture-specific strategy. Moreover, the individual countries are at different stages of the pandemic. Some have it behind them or at least claim to have it behind them, others are in the eye of the storm, and yet others still have the peak ahead of them. In China, after an initial phase of cover-up policy, attempts were made to slow down or halt the spread of the wave of infection with drastic measures, including the sealing off of a region and total digital surveillance. In Singapore and Hong Kong, the disease is being combated consistently with efficient forms of organization, while in South Korea digital methods are being used collectively. In Italy, Spain and France, in some regions, the health system is being used beyond its capacity limit, with state-imposed curfews and closures of non-essential businesses. In Germany, it is hoped to keep the spread of the virus under control by restricting contact. Sweden grants its population comparatively more freedom and appeals to individual responsibility. It is remarkable that some populist regimes initially underestimated the threat and now seem to be following behind. This is currently becoming particularly tragically evident in Great Britain, the USA and some South American countries, and may soon be the case in Russia and Turkey. However, the greatest human tragedies are likely to occur in India and Africa. Given the global threat, it seems doubtful that the international community will respond adequately to this. Every grave crisis examines the state of the world. It tests the strength of its order, the ability to deal with the consequences, to prove itself capable of learning. The global system question has long been asked. At present, not only the development of an effective vaccine is being feverishly pursued worldwide, but also the corresponding narratives of the best political system. This battle has only just begun.