Germany Essay Research Paper GermanyOn October 3

Germany Essay, Research Paper Germany On October 3, 1990, the states of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) shed their last ties to their Soviet created structure and joined the

Germany Essay, Research Paper


On October 3, 1990, the states of the German Democratic Republic (East

Germany) shed their last ties to their Soviet created structure and joined the

Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany). The 23rd article of West Germany’s

1949 constitution, the Basic Law, had been drafted specifically to allow for

such an arrival from the East. But as the 1980s drew to a close, few Germans on

either side of the border expected it to be used in their lifetime. Yet, in less

than a year the beginning of an upsurge of popular protest came together against

the communist regime in East Germany and the formal unification of Germany on

West German terms.

At a simple level, the constitution may be seen as a representation of

the traditional German desire for clarity and order, applied to the rights and

duties of the individual. It can also be described as a way of ensuring that the

events of the 1930s, particularly the rise of facism and dictatorship, will

never recur.

As a result of historical roots in West Germany and past abuses by

central government, Germany is a federation. The powers of the states cannot be

reduced. Each of the federal states and Berlin has its own constitution, a

democratically elected Parliament, a government, administrative agencies and

independant courts. However, states are binding to the federal constitution, the

federal constitution is binding upon the states and the federal parliament is

responsible for major legislation and policy. The state parliaments main

responsibility is in two major policy areas: education, and law and order.

Administration of federal legislation is mainly the responsibility of the states,

allowing for greater consideration of local needs and issues. This system of

government ia also intended to bring government closer to the people. In many

cases, state powers are delegated further to local authorities.

A further area of responsibility for the states arives from the

parliamentary structure. The legislative body is the Bundestag, but the

Bundesrat (anupper house representing )the states must approve most legislation.

Each state has between three and five votes in the Bundesrat, depending

on the size of its population. Members of the Bundesrat are appointed by the

state governments for their duration within the state government. Since state

elections are held continually during the term of federal parliament, the

members of the upper house may alter during the life of a federal government.

The approval of the Bundesrat is required for certain types of legislation,

Particularly the budget and those affecting the states. Differences are usually

overcome by a joint committee from the two houses.

The lower house, or the Bundestag, consists of a minimum of 656 deputies.

The Bundestag has a speaker, or president, usually elected from among the

largest parliamentary group. It has three main tasks: to act as the legislative

body, to elect the federal chancellor, and to control government activity. Any

changes to the Basic Law requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of

parliament. Thus the opposition parties can prevent amendments to the

constitution through their representation in either the Bundestag or Bundesrat.

The electoral system, finalized in 1956, is designed to both provide a

government representing the wishes of the people and proportional

representation. Candidates are elected by a majority vote in 328 constituencies

of roughly equal size. Each state is allocated a quota of MPs for each party,

derived from the second, or party vote. The difference between these numbers and

the numbers of directly elected representatives is then made up from party lists.

A party can win more seats on the directly elected segment of the vote than the

number given by the party list results, in which event the size of the lower

house is enlarged. This provision was used in 1990, with the addition of six


To prevent fragmentation, a party must secure either three direct

mandates or 5% of the total vote to be represented in parliament. This results

in a barrier to the development of new parties, which must fullfill the 5%

criteria without the help of representation in parliament. Also, when the

practice of vacancies exist in parliament the positions are filled from the

party list of the previous election rather than by a by-election, hampering new

or small party formation. In the 1990 elections the small, and largely new, East

German parties were allowed, for on time only, to form umbrella groups, side-

stepping this constraint.

However, state elections occur almost always once a year allowing

parties to try and gain representation in a state parliament, often by

concentrating their efforts.

The lower house is elected for a fixed term of four years and early

elections may only be called in specific circumstances. The chancellor (head of

government) is elected by the Bundestag on the proposal of the federal president.

In practice each of the main parties announces its chancellor candidate before

the election, making the task of the president somewhat of a formality. Once

elected, the chancellor nominates his or her cabinet for presidential approval,

but is still personally responsible to parliament. Individual ministers cannot

initiate a vote of no-confidence. A government can only be voted out if the

opposition can establish a majority for what is known as a constructive vote of

no confidence. In other words, the opposition must be able to provide a working

majority in favour of a new government. This occurred in late 1982, when the

small Free Democrat Party changed itsfollowing from the ruling Social Democrats

to the Christian Democrats, enabling the Christian Democrats to form a coalition.

The ability of a government to resign in order to call early elections

is also restricted to cirtain circumstances. When the new government of the

Christian Democrats and Free Democrats formed after the events of 1982 they

decided early elections would be appropriate. However, this decision was forced

to be brought up before the constitutional court, and only because it was the

parties only tactic was it allowed.

Although the federal president performs some of the usual formal

functions of a head of state, including signing treaties and following the

procedures for appointing the chancellor, the role is basically ceremonial. All

presidential orders require the counter-signature of the chancellor or relevant

minister. This obligation is concerned with the alleviating a number of the

problems which arose under Germany’s constitution of 1919 which gave the

president too much power and not enough to the parliament. The president is

elected for a five-year term by the full Bundestag and an equal number of

delegates from state parliaments. In the past the election has usually been a

formality. Richard von Weizsacker, formerly Christian Democrat mayor of West

Berlin, was elected president in 1984 and re-elected in 1989. His second, and

final, term comes to an end in May 1994. Although usually a former politician,

the president is expected to stand above party politics.

In the summer of 1989 the German Bundestag passed the so-called Stage

one Postal Reform which came into effect on January 1, 1990. The reforms

included a division between jurisdictional and regulatory functions and

entrepreneurial functions. The reform also resulted in associated business

sectors making up telecommunications, postal services and postal banking. The

aim of these reforms was to allow for more competition, hoping this would lead

to more innovation and development in the telecommunication sector. The reforms

represented to many in Europe a tremendous liberalization of the German

telecommunications market. Under the new structure, the Telekom branch of

Deutsche Bundespost (DBT) was granted a network monopoly. All other sectors of

the telecommunications market, including mobile and satelite communications,

which both legally belong to the monopoly were liberalized. Gradually, licences

were sold to private enterprises in these small and limiting areas of the

monopoly. Within the framework of its economic capabilities, Telekom is legally

bound to provide both the infrastructure and the infrastructure services.

As the new Telecommunication structure was being omplemented the

unification of Germany began, delaying the objectives of the postal reform. Many

Ministers used the successfull expansion of Telekom as a means of recognition,

while postponing a rapid seperation of the political and entrepreneurial

functions. At the beginning of 1990 Telekom had only just started changing from

a public administration to an undertaking based on entrepreneurial based

organization. Telekoms actions during and immediately following unification were

still largely focused on the objectives and procedures of the old Germany.

Therefore, there has been no real debate between Telekom and the Federal

Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (BMPT) on what gudelines Telekom should

follow when investing in the new federal states of the East. Telekomfrom must

decide whether it should follow its original political standpoint or its new

entrepreneurial approach, or whether the two even differ. Such a judgement is

not only desirable, but necessary to determine where the responsibilities of

Telekom lie.

In principle, the regulatory political and organizational structure set

upvalid in the Western German telecommunications sector was also binding in the

new federal states of the East on October3, 1990. This was decided even though

the conditions were very different in the former GDR due to the poor state of

development of telecommunications.The rapid installation of a basic

infrastructure was the priority in the East, while the emphasis in the West was

promoting network and service innovations. Nevertheless the BMPT did little

after unification to change the regulatory political framework in this

sectorregarding the circumstances existing in Eastern Germany. The monopoly on

terminal equipment which had been abandoned in the middle of 1990 in Western

Germany was maintained in Eastern Germany until the end of 1991. The ban on

private agencies offering satelite communication services was eased in mid-1990.

At first, certain conditions were attached to issuing these special permits, but

they were lifted in March 1991. These exceptions to the voice telephone service

monopoly are limited until 1997, and have not had any major influence on

accelerating the expansion of the telecommunication service offered. Only a few

private satellite service firms have offered appropriate services as a result.

In connection with the rapid improvements in the possibilities for East-West

communication, considerations of cost and quality control have created the

major obstacle to a larger range of services offered by private investors.

In June 1991 the BMPT also extended the licence of Mannesmann Mobilfunk,

the second cellular mobile radio operator chosen for Western Germany in December

1989, to cover the whole of Germany. At the same time it ordered that Mannesmann

was to provide access to the D2 network for 90% of the population and 75% of the

area in the new states in the East by the end of 1994. The two mobile telephone

networks in the 900 MHz band, D2 and D1, which were in the process of being

developed just after the political turning point, were in well suited to

providing a considerable expansion in the services offered in Eastern Germany.

With respect to the problems encountered by the federal government in

financing German unification, a special contribution to the federal treasury of

approximately DM 3 billion was imposed on Telekom. The BMPT was able to save

Telekom and its customers from a greater financial burden that had originally

been planned. In reality, however, this special contribution imposes an

additional financial burden on Telekom and makes the telecommunication services

it offers in Germany more expensive.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall and of the Communist regime at the

turn of 1989-90, it was not to clear if the developments would end in a rapid

unification of the two Germanies. Only months before the summer of 1990, when

Germany was to be officially united, a many decisions were taken in East and

West Germany that greatly affected the German telecommunication sector.

Immediately following the political turning point, as early as the beginning of

1990, joint committees were set up between the BMPT and the GDR ministry

responsible, and between DBT Telekom in the West and Deutsche Post Telekom in

the East. The main purpose of the committees was to ensure the rapid development

of the telecommunications infrastructure in the GDR and guide a compatible

merger of the two organizations’ regulatory bodies. By March of 1990 (long

before German unification had been decided) the two business enterprises had

completed the Telekom 2000 program to develop infrastructure in the GDR,

allowing Deutsche Post Telekom to start on the expansion of infrastructure in

the GDR with the financial support from DBT Telekom.

During the period of the political turning point the forces supporting

German unification gained the upper hand at an early stage within the post and

telecommunication sector of the GDR. They stematically reorganized structures

inside the GDR telecommunication sector with this in mind. They anticipated

Western German restructuring by seperating the GDR Post Ministry from Deutsche

Post and by splitting up the business underytaking into three divisions. These

same forces also prevented different regulatory political structures from

developing during these hectic months. It is a fact that foreign network

operators are known to have made offers to the GDR Minister of Posts during this

time, and for a short period the minister actually did consider licensing a

further (third) digital cellular mobile radio network operator in the GDR.

However, it was decided that ensuring optimum conditions for the smooth union of

telecommunications branches in East and West was their priority. Their strategy

was to achieve this by creating regulatory political by creating regulatory

political and organizational structures which were as uniform as possible. For

this reason the sectoral structures of the Western German telecommunication

sector were adopted in the new states of the East with practically no

modification. In this respect, developments in the telecommunication sector

following the political turning point do not differ from developments in other

branches of society, such as the sciences, the health service and others.

It is debated whether the structures introduced by the postal reform

were really suited to the rapid developments in telecommunications in Eastern

Germany, or whether it might not have been better to choose a regulatory

political structure that better matched the situation they faced. With a few

exceptions, no such discussions were ever undertaken. Because of the unexpected

speed with which of German unification took place, and the enormous public

pressure for immediate noticeable improvements in the industry, it was common to

spend hours of unsuccessful attempts to dial numbers in East-West communication.

Frequencies would have been available in the 1800 MHz band. However, this idea

was not pursued any further. Presumably the lack of any standardization of DCS

1800 at this time and respect for the financial stability of DBT Telekom, which

had just launched a DM 60 billion expansion program for the new federal states

in the East, played a major role in this respect. The new federal states

continued to play a role with the later licensing of a private E1 network

operator on the basis of DCS1800 in the spring of 1993, insofar as E-Plus has

undertaken to start developing its network in the East.

Also in the autumn and winter of 1990, the Monopolkommission (Monopolies

Commission) entered the debate, issuing a statement backed by a report

advocating a competitive market, or at least strengthening the competitive

elements, in the process of developing infrastructure in the East. None of these

ideas were followed up, all mainly because of the belief that no real dramatic

change in developments could be expected from such a major change in regulatory


Development of private investment in the new federal states of Eastern

Germany could best be described as hesitant. Companies were largely skeptical of

the industry structure.Because of Telekoms merger with Deutsche Post and its

ownership of existing buildings and land it was only minimally affected by the

problems of ownership to private companies and administrative procedures.

The primary objective of all development was to improve the

telecommunications infrastructure as soon as possible. Telecommunications was

seen as playing a leading role in the process of economic recovery and its

significance for the growing together of East and West. There was not enough

time for additional basic experimentation, either on the political or on the

technological level.

Another important political objective behind the process of unification,

was the intention of creating a uniform standard of living in the East and West.

The importance of this objective and of its implications within the political

process has an enormous influence on overall economic developments in Eastern

Germany and the telecommunication sector. In view of the huge excess demand for

telephone connections and telecommunication services, there were economic

arguments in favor of a sharp increase in tariffs above those in the West.

However, such a policy could never have been implemented at the political level.

Telephone tariffs in the East were brought in line with those in the West as

soon as was technically possible, regardless of the different conditions in

Eastern and Western Germany. Uniform charges were considered politically to be

more important than an economically efficient distribution of the short supply

of telephone connections. Like in many other economic sectors, goals of economic

efficiency have lost out to of just distribution when fixing telephone tarriffs

in the new states in the East.

As a public service, the West German telecommunications system is run by

the federal counties. The legal basis of this state monopoly is found in Article

87 of West German basic law, which states that the West German PTT has to be

conducted by a direct federal administration with its lower level of

administrative offices. The right of legislation on postal and telecommunication

matters falls exclusively on the federal county, according to Article 73 of the

basic law.

The federal minister for postal and telecommunication services is the

head of the West German PTT. According to Article 65 of West German basic law

the federal minister for postal and telecommunication services, shall conduct

the affairs of the West German PTT autonomously and on his own responsibility.

Telecommunication policy formation as well as the management of administration

is the responsability of the federal minister for postal and telecommunication

services,. However, his power is is restricted and controlled by the Postal

Administration Council (Para 1, Art 1 of the postal administration law). The

members include the West German Bundestag, the West German Bundesrat and

representatives of the different areas of the economy as well as seven members

of the West German PTT trade union, the Deutsche Postgewerkschaft (DPG), and

experts from the fields of broadcasting and finance (Para 5, Art 2). All 24

members of the Postal Administration Council are appointed by their national

councils or by the minister for postal and telecommunication services (expert

from the field of broadcasting) and the minister for finance (expert from the

field of finance). According to Para 12 of the postal administration law, the

council decides on the budget of the West German PTT. Further executive rights

extend to conditions on the use of postal and telecomunication systems,

including pricing (ara 12, Art 4), decisions on the field of activities (Para 12,

Art 5), as well as changes in the technical telecommunication infrastructure

(Para 12, Art 6). As an important control body, the Postal Administration

Council has to approve all regulations proposed by the federal minister for

postal and telecommunication services.However, the minister for postal and

telecommunication services has the power to annul decisions of the postal

administration council (Para 13, Art 1,2).

Despite this kind of veto right, the federal government as well as the

Bundestag have no direct control over the West German policies of

telecommunication. Yet the West German PTT is obliged to respect the principles

of the politics of West Germany, according to Para 2, Art 1 of the postal

administration law. However, the principles defined by the federal government

are so vague that they cannot properly act as a stern basis for engaging in

telecommunication policies. The influence of the Bundestag is even weaker since

the budget of the West German PTT forms a special fund (Para 3, Art 1 of the

postal administration law), over which the West German PTT exercises its own

budgetary rights. The influence of parliament is only by the participation of

members of parliament in the postal administration council as well as in

political positions in the federal postal and telecommunication administration.

The result is that West German telecommunication policy is designed and

implemented around the postal administration council and the postal

administration. In spite of occasional accusations of opportunism aimed at the

postal administration council, it’s believable that the post administration has

adjusted itself to the potential compromises in the council. This can be backed

up by the strong clashes in the council, and by that overruling the postal

administration council too often would likely lead to harmful campaigns against

the council.

The development of the telecommunication infrastructure within this

political and institutional framework became more and more criticized in the

1970s. Finally it caused the demand for reform within the institutional and

political framework. The origins of the criticism came from the rapid

technological developments of the 1960s and 1970s. Spectacular developments in

the realms of microelectronics and transmission technology as well as the

continuing digitalization made merging telecommunication and data-processing

possible. This resulted in new quantitative and qualitative demands on the

telecommunication infrastructure.

According to critics, the West German PTT, by not allowing competition,

had not been in a position to complete these demands. This criticism, mainly

forwarded by the Liberal Democratic Party, was mostly concerned with the

international competitiveness of West Germany. Further demands for the opening

of markets were created by those countries which have already deregulated their

telecommunication systems, for example the UK, USA, and Japan.

Germany has eight main political paries: Christian Democratic Union

(CDU), Christian Social Union (CSU), Free Democrat Party (FDP), Social Democrat

Party (SDP), The Greens, The Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS), The

Republicans, and the Deutsche Volksunion.

Christian Democratic Union

The CDU, combining Catholics abd Protestants, has been the most

important single party in the development of post-war Germany. Its foreign

policy was forged by Konrad Adenauer and is based on the Atlantic alliance.

Although it also accepted the opening to the east initiated in the late 1960s

and early 1970s by Willy Brandt and it is currently concerned with stability in

post-communist Eastern Europe. Its leader, Helmut Kohl, has been chancellor

since 1982 and still exercises a powerful personal control over the party. The

CDU’s domestic policy is based on the concept of the social market as developed

by Ludwig Erhard in the 1950s.

Christian Social Union

The CSU is a sister party of the CDU. It is Catholic and operates only

in Bavaria where it is not challenged by the CDU. Under the leadership of the

late Franz Josef Strauss, it was more openly assertive in the pursuance of

German interests than the CDU. Its present leader is the finance minister, Theo

Waigel. Howevere, Edmund Stoiber, the prime minister of Bavaria, as a more

aggressive politician in the tradition of Franz Josef Strauss, is equally


Free Democrat Party

The free democrats are basically a liberal party in the European rather

than the American sense; they believe in limiting government interference in all

walks of life, including both questions like divorce and abortion, and the

economy. On the latter they are generally to the right of the CDU. However, the

FDP’s most dominant personality in the second half of the 1970s, and until his

resignation in 1992, was Hans-Dietrich Genscher, who made his name as foreign

minister. The present leader, Klaus Kinkel, is also foreign minister.

Social Democrat Party

Once Marxist (though always democratic), the Social Democrats

established a programme of pragmatic reform known as the Bad Godesberg program

at the end of the 1950s. This paved the way for Helmut Schmidt, two of Germany’s

most influential post-war politicians. The difference between their economic

philosophy and the Christian Democrats’ social market is not fundamental. At

present, however, the SPD believes the CDU has failed to face up to the need to

pay for unification, and advocates higher taxes, especially on the better off.

The SPD’s foreign policy has always emphasized openings to the east, but not at

the expense of the Atlantic alliance or the EU. There is a strong pacifist

element which currently opposes any German military activity outside Germany,

including participation in UN peacekeeping operations; however, it should be

said that there are pacifists in all major parties.

The Greens

The Greens had a major influence on German policies of all major parties

during the 1980s, having surmounted the 5% threshold needed to be represented in

parliament in the 1983 elections. However, in December 1990 they just failed to

meet this threshold in western Germany, partly because of an internal division

between realists and purists. They are represented in the Bundestag because in

eastern Germany, where a seperate threshold was provided, they won more than 5%

in alliance with Bundnis 90, a group of protest parties from the former East

Germany. They also participate in governing coalitions in some state parliaments.

The Party of Democratic Socialism

This is the former SED or ruling party of East Germany. Under a moderate

leader, Gregor Gysi, who was never closely associated with the Honecker regime,

it has attracted the support of some of those who have lost their jobs or homes

as a result of unification.

The Republicans and Deutsche Volksunion

The Republicans and Deutsche Volksunion represent nationalist forces on

the far right of German politics. They have played on the immigration issue.