Leipzig/Zittau. Critics of the corona protection measures from the Upper Lusatian highlands are protesting particularly loudly against the government's steps with petitions and open letters. The social scientist Raj Kollmorgen from the Zittau/Görlitz University of Applied Sciences with a professorship in the management of social change has an explanation for this.

There isa growing initiative in the Upper Lusatian highlands that is fabulating in social networks about the "arbitrariness of the executive" and an impending relapse into "totalitarian mode". What do you think of this?
Whether all the protective measures taken by the executive against the pandemic are sufficient - or go too far - can, indeed must, be debated. And this debate is taking place across all sections of the population, scientific institutions and political camps. I don't agree with all the restrictions, for example on church services, small demonstrations or libraries. But the theory that the executive is using the pandemic to smugly expand its power or paralyze parts of the economy without justification is absurd.

Why?
As we know, the state lives from tax revenues and therefore has a vested interest in keeping the economy - from flower stores to car giants - running. Arguments as to why politicians should suddenly be motivated to deprive the self-employed and small business owners of their professional livelihoods are not cited in the appeals of mistrustful citizens. They would also be highly irrational. A civil society debate on the current curtailment of civil rights such as the freedom of assembly is permitted and democratically required. However, if the policies of the federal and state governments are compared to - as you mentioned - a "totalitarian mode" of administrative action in the GDR, then the discussion drifts in a disturbing
direction. Anyone who equates the pandemic defense today with the authoritarian state behavior before 1989 is comparing apples with oranges.

What is most wrong with the comparison?
The current restrictions are not about paternalistic paternalism or maintaining the power of a politburocracy, but about acute health protection in the interests of the population. To allude to the GDR past as if the return of an undemocratic ruling regime were in the air is, in my opinion, absurd. To accuse the political actors of the Federal Republic or the Free State of not dealing intensively and critically with the curtailment of civil rights is simply nonsense. For a truly authoritarian approach to the crisis, I recommend looking to China or Russia.

Were you surprised by this concentrated renitence in the border triangle?
Not really. The fundamental distrust of larger sections of the population towards political institutions and their elites has a long tradition in remote and structurally weak regions of eastern Germany. This is particularly true of the rural border regions, which were often neglected during the GDR era and where the GDR's ruling regime was more brutal than elsewhere. Facets of this mentality have survived reunification and have joined forces with new movements critical of the state. Not least the electoral success of the AfD in eastern Saxony, but also in the Ore Mountains or northern Anhalt, illustrate the strength of right-wing populist movements, for whom the opposition between the so-called "established elites" and the people is a fundamental conviction.

Is there also a fear of loss behind this?
Yes. In the structurally weak regions, most people's incomes and assets are smaller and fewer reserves have been built up. Accordingly, there is greater uncertainty and fear of expropriation or even impoverishment, but that is more than just a dull feeling, isn't it? Certainly, a lot has gone wrong in rural areas over the past three decades. In view of the new structural change, this is currently the subject of intense debate. We need to talk about past failures and the challenges of the future, negotiate and decide democratically. However, it remains wrong to reinterpret the political mistakes of the last 30 years as arbitrary state action, which is now also evident in the coronavirus crisis.

Interview: Winfried Mahr