Profil du Pays: Allemagne

Pluralism in Germany is characterized by fragmentation. This fragmentation is territorial, the result of the country’s federal structure and legal and political system. Legal systems in Germany’s federated states (Länder) vary considerably with regard to the management of diversity and the pursuit of pluralist policy. Fragmentation also extends to variations among different minority, immigrant and post-migrant groups. Recent challenges are primarily seen in relation to immigrants, refugees and Germans who are (clumsily) referred to as of “migrant background.” Finally, fragmentation results from the experience of the Second World War and the Holocaust, which is reflected in strong public concern about heightened anti-Semitism and underpins principles regarding the protection of human dignity (Menschenwürde) but not always an accommodating perspective towards cultural pluralism and post-migration “difference.” Across this fragmented setting, and especially over the past two decades, conditions and attitudes are shifting, although not in a linear direction toward pluralism. Most recently, a new coalition government of centre-left parties has assumed office and is committed to further changes to move the country in a pluralistic direction, including a revision of immigration and nationality law.

The future success of Germany’s approach to cultural pluralism will depend on the country’s adaptation to new demographic realities and social needs and on the recognition of the cultural diversity that already exists and is certain to grow. While Germany’s major political framework to address this challenge—the promotion of Integration—is increasingly designed to recognize diversity (Vielfalt) and to promote social cohesion (Zusammenhalt), more traditional understandings of social unity, which expect minority groups to assimilate and adapt to majority culture, have not been abandoned.

For most of the post-war period, Germany pursued assimilationist policies toward immigrants and their children, often mixed with the misplaced expectation that labour migrants (Gastarbeiter) would eventually leave. The recognition of pluralism as a permanent fact is a recent phenomenon, often connected with public “debates” about the place of Islam in Germany. There are currently between 5.3 and 5.6 million Muslims with a migrant background, around 900,000 more than in 2015. This makes up between 6.4 and 6.7 percent of Germany’s entire population. Within the German demographic framework, migration background, a term used to describe first-generation migrants and their children, exists alongside the four national minorities recognized by the German state, namely the Danish minority, the Roma/Sinti, the Frisian and Sorb groups. While the largest number of Muslims in Germany are of Turkish heritage, countries of origin have recently become more diverse, also due to the high number of refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq since 2015.

Following the sharply increased number of people seeking asylum in Europe since 2015, the focus of debates about cultural pluralism in German society is clearly on immigrants and/or people with immigrant backgrounds, with the main issues being integration and equality. Protection of the four “autochthonous minorities” often tends to be taken for granted and as such is not very present in public discourse, despite attempts by Schleswig-Holstein, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Brandenburg and Saxony to acknowledge this diversity.

Public debates about post-migrant circumstances and refugees are often marked by anxiety. The denial of religious rights and experiences of racialization leads to assertive mobilizations and a variety of campaign, pressure and monitoring groups are present here. The fact that the experience of national minority groups is not accompanied by similar levels of assertive claims-making should not be understood to imply challenging issues do not exist. With some exceptions around language and political representation, national minority groups in Germany do not mobilize in favour of enhanced visibility or for the recognition of cultural needs. Policy-makers and administrators are often less aware of national minority concerns. In some instances, the relative absence of conflict around national minority concerns may be seen to imply a degree of acceptance and normality, but it can equally mean that national minority concerns lack visibility and representation.

The identification of “new” minority groups within Germany, along with their self-perception as full Germans, remains ambivalent. Access to adequate housing, to culturally sensitive health care or meaningful employment is not guaranteed, especially for groups such as Muslims, that often experience multiple causes of exclusion. Adding to the fragmentation mentioned above, the interdependence of factors such as religion, ethnicity, gender and social class makes attempts to generalize and address a singular immigration or minority experience highly problematic. The experience of Muslim women, in particular, in German society, economy, politics and culture indicate intersecting experiences of inequality based on ethno-religious background and gender.

The resistance of German authorities to ethnic data election is an additional hurdle towards the detailed mapping and remedy of shortcomings in the promotion of diversity-related policies. Several factors are relevant here: historical context, data protection regulations and the existing practice of collecting sensitive data in Germany. In historical terms, the annihilation of Jews and Roma during the Nazi regime largely rested on the population registers. More contemporary risks of processing ethnic data—the discrimination, stigmatization and perpetuation of stereotypes against minority groups and persons belonging to them—are also invoked. Yet, discrimination, hate crimes, ethnic stereotyping and inter-ethnic distance do not rest on the availability of ethnic data per se but have deeper causes. As for the claim that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union (EU) prohibits processing of ethnic data, Article 9 of the GDPR does not ban, in absolute terms, the processing of special categories of data, also covering ethnic data.[ii] Finally, processing sensitive data in Germany is not as consistent as the authorities claim: data on religion is regularly collected in Germany despite similar concerns about sensitivity.

There is, nevertheless, systematic collection of statistical data on migrants that include their countries of origin and history of naturalization in Germany. The data of the Federal Office of Administration (Bundesverwaltungsamt) determined that around 4.5 million people came to Germany as so-called repatriated Germans (Aussiedler) from a wide spectrum of countries such as the former Soviet Union, the former Yugoslavia, Poland, Romania, Albania and even China. Upon the completion of the naturalization process, the aforementioned diverse groups are treated as fully integrated Germans and are consequently excluded from migrant-related statistical records. There is comparatively little known about their socio–cultural needs and practices from a diversity perspective.