Study Commission "Processing the History and Consequences of the SED Dictatorship"

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The study commission “Working through the history and consequences of the SED dictatorship” was set up in March 1992 by the German Bundestag, the second study commission “Overcoming the consequences of the SED dictatorship in the process of German unity” in September 1995. They dealt with dealing with and overcoming the consequences of the SED dictatorship in the process of German reunification . In parallel to the legal appraisal and the work of the BStU , it should above all make “contributions to the political-historical analysis and the political-moral assessment” (Bundestag Drucksache 12/8720: 9) of the SED dictatorship and make policy recommendations for further dealing with the GDR - Working out the past. In addition, the committee should contribute to the reconciliation of society, offer the population assistance in dealing with the GDR past, strengthen democratic self-confidence in dialogue with the public and support the further development of a common political culture .

The commission published its final report in May 1994, whereupon the Bundestag decided to set up a second, more focused study commission entitled “Overcoming the Consequences of the SED Dictatorship in the Process of German Unity”. This should further deepen the results of the first committee and make contributions to society as a whole coming to terms with the GDR past. In addition, it should further consolidate the democratic self-confidence of the population, promote the internal reconciliation of society, address current issues of the reunification process and develop recommendations for action.

Appointment of the study commission

Following a resolution by the Bundestag (Bundestag printed matter 12/2330 of March 11, 1992), the Enquete Commission “Dealing with the history and consequences of the SED dictatorship in Germany” was constituted on March 19, 1992 and elected the MP Rainer Eppelmann (CDU / CSU ) by mutual agreement with its chairman. The commission comprised a total of 27 members who, according to the distribution of seats in parliament, consisted of 16 members and eleven external experts. The individual MPs were each named by their parliamentary groups and the majority came from East Germany. (For more information, see members).

The comparatively late appointment of such a commission is often attributed in academia to the particular dynamism of the reunification process, since the GDR started to process the regime legally before the official reunification (October 3, 1990). Above all, there were charges of abuse of office, corruption and election fraud. At the same time, many citizens demanded access to the files of the MfS. Therefore, in June 1990 a special committee was set up to monitor the dissolution of the MfS , which was later often referred to as the Gauck authority or the Stasi records authority. In this way it should be avoided that the same mistakes are repeated as in dealing with the Nazi past, where the "survivors stood like beggars in front of closed archive doors because the perpetrators' personal rights were more important than the stolen dignity of the oppressed" ( Gauck, Joachim 2001: 63f).

Only when the initial euphoria after the opening of the border slowly subsided and the problems of reunification became more and more noticeable did calls for new ways of coming to terms with the GDR past sounded. The reasons for this are often cited in the literature as high unemployment in the East, the weak economy in the GDR and the exploding costs of reunification. In addition, the process of upheaval went hand in hand with a “culture and consumer shock” (Görtemaker, Manfred 2015) for many citizens of the East, although the opening of the Wall in East Germany was initially understood as a liberation and an opportunity. This climate was also accompanied by growing dissatisfaction with the criminal proceedings, which only very few actors and functionaries of the SED were able to convict because of the legal prohibition of retroactive effects . In addition, the first signs of the mystification of the MfS and the trivialization of the SED regime appeared in society.

Therefore, in the early 1990s, various ideas and concepts for tribunals were discussed in a broad public debate. Beyond legal proceedings, they should make moral judgments, discuss and assign political guilt. Based on the argument that the Bundestag, as the highest democratically elected authority, has a special responsibility for coming to terms with the GDR past, the MPs finally decided in March 1992 to set up a study commission to come to terms with the SED dictatorship.

As is customary with inquiry commissions, the committee was subordinate to parliament and was composed of a cooperation of members of parliament and experts. In this way, the commission could be closely tied to the Bundestag and at the same time it could be avoided that a tribunal without democratic legitimation would deal with the GDR past. It was always emphasized that the politically motivated work of the study commission should not anticipate or replace the legal and scientific analysis of the GDR.

With the aim of “preparing contributions to political-historical analysis and political-moral evaluation” (Bundestag printed matter 12/7820: 9), the commission carried out extensive research between 1992 and 1994 amounting to over 15,000 pages, which were condensed into a final report were published in May 1994 and are publicly available in the Bundestag's printed matter 12/7820. During its work, the study commission conducted 44 public and 37 private hearings, with a total of 327 contemporary witnesses and scientists being heard.

Members

Ordinary members (MPs)
Surname fraction position
Rainer Eppelmann CDU / CSU Chairman
Hartmut Büttner (from 10.93) CDU / CSU
Wolfgang Dehnel (until 11.92) CDU / CSU
Susanne Jaffke (until 9. 92) CDU / CSU
Harald Kahl (until 10.93) CDU / CSU
Hartmut Koschyk (from 10/93, chairman from 7/93) CDU / CSU Chairman from 7. 93
Rudolf Krause (until 3.93) CDU / CSU
Klaus-Heiner Lehne (from 10.92 to 10.93) CDU / CSU
Maria Michalk (from 3. 93) CDU / CSU
Günther Müller CDU / CSU
Dorothee Wilms (chairman until 7.93) CDU / CSU Chairman until 7. 93
Roswitha Wisniewski (from 11. 92) CDU / CSU
Christel Hanewinkel (until 9. 93) SPD
Stephan Hilsberg SPD
Regina Kolbe (from 9.93) SPD
Markus Meckel SPD Chairman
Margot from Renesse SPD Deputy Chair
Gert Weisskirchen SPD
Dirk Hansen FDP Chairman
Jürgen Schmieder FDP
Gerd Poppe Alliance 90 / The Greens Chairman
Dietmar Keller PDS / LL Chairman
expert
Surname Area of ​​Expertise
Bernd Faulenbach History
Alexander Fischer Eastern European history
Karl Wilhelm Fricke publicist
Martin Gutzeit Theologian and Berlin state representative for the files of the MfS
Hans-Adolf Jacobsen (from 3. 93) Political science
Walter Kempowski (until 12.92) Teacher and writer
Armin Mitter history
Martin-Michael Passauer Pastor and Superintendent of the Church District Berlin City III
Friedrich-Christian Schroeder Law (criminal law, criminal procedural law and Eastern law)
Hermann Weber Political Science and Contemporary History
Manfred Wilke sociology
Herbert Wolf Economy

tasks and goals

The tasks of the study commissions are described in detail in the first sections of the final reports as well as the resolution recommendations of the Bundestag for their establishment (printed matter 12/2597, 13/1535 and 13/1762). Since the areas of responsibility and goals of both commissions for coming to terms with and overcoming the SED regime strongly overlap and their work in the academic discourse is mostly assigned to the same review or transitional justice process, no clear distinction is made below between the tasks and goals of both committees . Overall, five main objectives of the two study commissions can be identified in the above documents:

  1. On the one hand, the study commissions pursued the goal of working through and evaluating the events in the GDR from a political-historical and political-moral perspective (cf. BTD 12/7820: 9). The main aim of this was to find out what happened in the GDR, who was involved in it and to what extent , and how it can be dealt with in the future. As the formulation of the goal already suggests, this was primarily a politically motivated coming to terms with the GDR's past. These should not be confused with a purely scientific analysis of the events, which is why the reports increasingly draw attention to the political character of the study commissions and their work. Since the commissioners, with their limited resources, could not do justice to the entire complexity of the GDR's past, their work focused on various topics from the start. These included: “1) Power structures and forms of decision-making in the SED state and the question of responsibility. 2) The role and importance of ideology, integrative factors and disciplinary practices in the state and society of the GDR. 3) Law, justice and police in the SED state. 4) Internal German relations and international framework conditions. 5) Role and self-image of the churches in the different phases of the SED dictatorship. 6) Possibilities and forms of deviant and resistant behavior and oppositional action, the peaceful revolution in autumn 1989 and the reunification of Germany ”(Bundestag Drucksache 12/7820: 10).
  2. The second goal is directly linked to the results of the first goal and tries to name responsibilities, to restore injured sense of justice and to rehabilitate the victims of the SED regime. The search for historical truth and mutual understanding should help to restore and publicly acknowledge the dignity and the injured sense of justice of those affected so that “people with their different biographies can better find themselves in the unification process” (Bundestag printed matter 13/1100: 11). The goal thus clearly follows the principle of "restorative justice", which tries to rehabilitate the victims and to do them justice by establishing a historical truth about the events. The suffering of those affected should be publicly recognized and compensated. This step seemed necessary in the process of German reunification, since after around 40 years of the GDR the historical truth is one of the few things that could still be restored for the victims of the regime; mainly because of the problems of legal processing.
  3. In addition, the democratic self-confidence of society should be strengthened through the work of the commissions and contributions to the further development of a pan-German political culture should be developed. In this way, the liberal sense of justice as well as the anti-totalitarian consensus should be manifested in Germany in order to “counteract all tendencies to play down and justify dictatorships” (Bundestag printed matter 13/11000: 11). Since this goal is more to be assigned to overcoming the SED dictatorship than to coming to terms with it, the second commission in particular dealt with this topic. In order to achieve this goal, the second commission first outlined in detail how the two dictatorships (Nazi dictatorship and SED dictatorship) in East and West Germany had been dealt with so far, before naming research desiderata and making recommendations for how to deal with them further.
  4. Fourthly, the study commissions tried to contribute to the reconciliation of society so that “people with their different biographies can better find themselves in the unification process” (Bundestag printed matter 13/11000: 11). Here the responsibilities of the SED regime should be clarified in dialogue with the public and politically and historically assessed. This should contribute both to the reconciliation of the victims and perpetrators of the SED regime, as well as to the "internal reunification" between citizens of the former GDR and the FRG. The final reports show that the Enquete Commissions wanted to promote social reconciliation primarily through historical processing and the rehabilitation of the victims. For example, the first final report sums up that the victims of the SED dictatorship in particular have a right to the truth: "Only when the truth has been disclosed and guilt has been admitted by the perpetrators can reconciliation be brought up" (Bundestag printed matter 12 / 7820: 281). This approach builds closely on the concept of historical truth, which is often used in transitional justice processes to deal with the past in conflict.
  5. Recently, the commissions followed the mandate to develop recommendations for action for the Bundestag, legislative measures and other political initiatives as well as to provide information on the educational and psychological processing of the GDR past. Since the committees had only very limited resources at their disposal due to their institutionalization as inquiry commissions and, for example, could neither summon people as witnesses nor bring recommendations for resolutions or legislative proposals directly to the Bundestag, the final reports mainly contain recommendations for action for the members of parliament. They also contain numerous recommendations for legislative measures, political initiatives and approaches for educational and psychological processing and coming to terms with the GDR past.

Study commission in scientific discourse

In the academic discourse, the two study commissions on "Coming to terms with the history and consequences of the SED dictatorship" (1992–1994) and "Overcoming the consequences of the SED dictatorship in the process of German unity" (1995-1998) are often called truth commissions classified and thus assigned to the instruments of transitional justice . One of the reasons for this classification is that both bodies took a victim's perspective to come to terms with the GDR past. In addition, they were temporarily and officially set up by the Bundestag, published a freely accessible final report and interacted (albeit to a limited extent) with the population by holding public meetings and hearings of victims. In this way, both Enquete Commissions formally fulfill the characteristics of truth commissions as defined by Priscilla B. Hayner.

However, their actual contribution to reconciliation is rated only as extremely small by some authors. For example, it is criticized that the commissions did not involve the public enough in the processing process and that the public interest in their work was particularly low; especially in comparison to the legal processing and the work of the BStU. One of the main points of criticism in the discourse about the commissions is the limited interaction with the affected population. Its institutional framework as a commission of inquiry and the resulting closeness to parliament is also often criticized, as this harbors the risk of politicizing the past debate.

However, the work of the commissions should not be limited to this criticism by highlighting the positive aspects of their work. This includes, for example, that both bodies have made a decisive contribution to coming to terms with East German history through their work. In addition, many of their recommendations are still considered guidelines for parliamentary debates in Germany.

Web links

literature

Further literature on the second study commission:

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k Bundestag Drucksache 12/7820 1994: Report of the Enquete Commission " Processing the history and consequences of the SED dictatorship in Germany" . Available online at: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/12/078/1207820.pdf
  2. ↑ a b c d e Bundestag printed matter 13/11000 1998: Final report of the study commission "Overcoming the consequences of the SED dictatorship in the process of German unity". Available online at: http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/13/110/1311000.pdf
  3. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j Anne Krüger: “No reconciliation without truth” - the Enquête Commissions for “coming to terms with” and “overcoming the SED dictatorship” . In: Susanne, Buckley-Zistel; Thomas, Kater (ed.): After war, violence and repression: The difficult handling of the past. Baden-Baden, S. 131-149 .
  4. ↑ a b c Gabriele Metzler: Contemporary History in Parliament The materials of the Enquete Commission "Processing the history and consequences of the SED dictatorship in Germany" . In: Historical magazine . tape 266 , no. 1 , 1998, p. 97-109 , doi : 10.2307 / 27631851 , JSTOR : 27631851 .
  5. ^ Art, Klaas .: Coming to terms with the past as part of nation-building: Germany and South Africa after 1989 . Kovač, Hamburg 2014, ISBN 978-3-8300-8119-7 .
  6. ↑ Limbach, Jutta., Gauck, Joachim, 1940-: Truth politics in Germany and South Africa: three paths to coming to terms with the past . Offizin, Hannover 2001, ISBN 3-930345-27-7 .
  7. ^ A b Federal Agency for Civic Education: Shaping Reunification | bpb. Retrieved November 6, 2017 .
  8. ^ GDR nostalgia - dimensions of the orientations of East Germans | Katja Neller | Jumper . ( springer.com [accessed November 6, 2017]).
  9. ↑ a b c Rudnick, Carola S .: The other half of memory. The GDR in German historical politics after 1989 . transcript, Bielefeld 2011, ISBN 978-3-8376-1773-3 .
  10. ↑ Bundestag Drucksache 12/2597 1992: Recommendation for a resolution and report by the Enquete Commission "Working on the history and consequences of the SED dictatorship". Available online at: http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/12/025/1202597.pdf
  11. ↑ [1]
  12. ↑ a b c d Hayner, Priscilla B .: Unspeakable truths: transitional justice and the challenge of truth commissions . 2nd ed. Routledge, New York, NY 2011, ISBN 978-0-415-80635-0 .
  13. ↑ Bacher, Georg ,: The contribution of truth commissions to peacebuilding and lasting reconciliation: the example of South Africa . Lang, Frankfurt am Main 2004, ISBN 3-631-52649-0 .
  14. ↑ a b c d Assmann, Aleida: From collective violence to a common future. A critical review of the “2009 year of commemoration” . In: Assmann, Wolfgang R .; Count v. Kalnein, Albrecht (Ed.): Memory and Society. Forms of coming to terms with dictatorships in Europe . Berlin 2011, p. 25-43 .
  15. ↑ Alexander Hasgall: Recognition of injustice in transitional justice processes . In: Handbuch Transitional Justice (=  Springer Reference Social Sciences ). Springer VS, Wiesbaden, 2017, ISBN 978-3-658-02391-1 , pp. 27–44 , doi : 10.1007 / 978-3-658-02392-8_8 ( springer.com [accessed November 9, 2017]).
  16. ↑ Eric Wiebelhaus-Brahm: What is a Truth Commission and Why Does it Matter? ID 1611719. Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY May 1, 2009 ( ssrn.com [accessed November 9, 2017]).
  17. ↑ Brigitte Weiffen: Transitional Justice . In: Handbook Transformation Research . Springer VS, Wiesbaden, 2015, ISBN 978-3-658-05347-5 , pp. 749-754 .
  18. ↑ a b Jennifer A. Yoder: Truth without reconciliation: An appraisal of the enquete commission on the SED dictatorship in Germany . In: German Politics . tape 8 , no. 3 , December 1, 1999, ISSN  0964-4008 , p. 59-80 , doi : 10.1080 / 09644009908404568 .
  19. ^ Wüstenberg, Ralf K .: Coming to terms with or reconciliation? : a comparison of the politics of the past in Germany and South Africa . Brandenburg State Center for Political Education, Potsdam 2008, ISBN 3-932502-53-1 .
  20. ^ A b Andrew H. Beattie: Playing Politics with History: The Bundestag Inquiries into East Germany . NED - New ed., 1. Berghahn Books, 2008, ISBN 978-1-84545-533-0 , JSTOR : j.ctt9qd9wj .
  21. ^ Thomas, Großbölting: History and Politics in the reunited Germany . In: Handro, Saskia; Schaarschmidt, Thomas (Ed.): Working up the work-up. The GDR in a cultural history discourse . Schwalbach / Ts 2011, p. 37-54 .