Dr. Adenauer's Mirror

The German Free Democrats have apparently won their victory: Herr Strauss has promised not to reappear in the next Cabinet, at least for the time being. The immediate political crisis seems to have ended , and Dr. Adenauer and the Christian Democrats are beginning negotiations for the formation of a new government.

There is no doubt that the Free Democrats drew the line against Herr Strauss with commendable solidarity. But this very solidarity had led them into the strange delusion that the solution to the government crisis was in their hands to begin with, that they needed only expel the Defense Minister to reassure Germany, the Bundestag, and the foreign press that all was quiet on the Western front. In fact last week's jockeying among party leaders has simply continued to show how insular is Bonn, and how far from reassured the outside world must remain. Nobody has grounds as yet to relax about the shaky state of German democracy.

The purest confusion still obscures the reasons for the Government's behavior in the Spiegel affair, which precipitated the crisis that is now over a month old. Dr. Adenauer has explained the "facts" of the case in a television speech that answered none of the important questions and satisfied nobody. The official investigation of the case--seemingly undertaken more as a political sop to the Justice Minister than as a serious effort at determining motive and responsibility for the arrests-- has yielded a report that Bonn is so far unwilling to release.

It is true enough that Der Spiegel continues to publish, and that the German public has for once loudly demanded explanations instead of sheepishly calling itself Kleinleute unable to pronounce on complex matters of state. But even these encouraging signs of political health only mildly temper the government's--especially the Chancellor's--fantastic confidence that ingenious face-saving will clear up the whole Spiegel business. Prove the magazine's guilt beyond doubt, Dr. Adenauer seems to say, apologize for any "mistakes" made in arresting the editors (as the communique on Strauss' resignation did); and so put to public involvement in my regime's affairs.

Face-saving, to say the least, will be difficult. The government must supply satisfactory answers to questions like: (1) Why was the Spiegel article considered offensive, not to mention treasonous, in the first place? Its careful description of the inadequacy of certain German N.A.T.O. defenses did not plan to inspire confidence in the competence of Herr Franz-Josef Strauss, yet it said nothing not common knowledge among fairly sophisticated Bonn reporters. (2) Why was Wolfgang Stammberger, the Justice Minister, not notified of the arrest carried out under his deputy's orders? This question, which the deputy's dismissal scarcely settles, may prove the stickiest wicket of all for the Adenauer regime. As the Economist, one of the mess's more moderate critics, puts it: "If the ministers cannot answer for what their ministries do, then parliament is not in a position to control the executive; and the German Federal Government the facade of it." (3) Why did the arrest take place suddenly and unexpectedly, three weeks after the article was published, and why was the reporter Conrad Ahlers (who wrote the article) mysteriously seized in Spain on the German government's order? (4) And lastly, was it all prompted simply by Herr Strauss' annoyance at Der Spiegel's interminable hostility to his policy and personality, and if so, was Dr. Adenauer a knowing partner? The Chancellor and his former Minister openly dispute the extent of the partnership.

The first question concerns the fairness of the Republic's wide constitutional definition of treason; the second wonders if Germany's executive has done away with representative government; the third involves the embarrassing symbol of secret, sudden, police tactics; the fourth asks if a Cabinet minister and perhaps also the chief executive have been exploiting weaknesses in the constitution, ministries, and Bundestag to carry on a private feud. Getting ride of a few officials has neither answered these questions nor prevented them from being raised again and again the future. Nor has the government's response: largely confined to denouncing the foreign press. Instead of taking note of the public out-cry against the jailing of Rudolf Augstein, Bonn has lent its tacit support to Herr Strauss' highly successful Christian Social Union campaign strategy in the Bavarian Landelection--calling those asking for his resignation Communists.

If there is any pattern at all to this eccentric sequence of events, the key to it must be Dr. Adenauer's obsession with his political career. Whenever something threatens the Chancellor's reputation, or tries to influence the date of his retirement or his plans for a successor, it washes away his dignity and vision. There were his childish assaults on Dr. Ludwig Erhard when it seemed that the Chancellorship, and his campaign of vilification against Willy Brandt. At the moment he appears to be under going an extended lapse, which his most faithful lieu-tenants (Herr Dufhues and Herr Krone) no doubt recognized last week: they called upon him, as if to wake him up, to reassert control of his party and country.

Although their motives were chiefly to save the Chancellor from a Bundestag whose non-Bavarians were becoming increasingly fretful at being kept in the dark over Der Spiegel, their advice was sound. What Dr. Adenauer does now will determine the pattern of German politics for years. If he seriously tries to mend the liberal institutions which the last month has shown to be trembling close to ruin, his rescue of democracy in Germany may be conclusive. So sordid has the Government's treatment of the Spiegel case looked this far that a fair settlement will involve its losing face rather than saving it. It is up to the Chancellor to see if, after all, he can give up that which he prizes most.