Culture Management 2012, Vol 5 (5)

The basic tenets of Germany’s cultural policy were formulated in Article 5 of the Basic Law, ratified

May 23rd, 1949, in Bonn by the Parliamentary Council. (1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.

(3) Arts and sciences, research and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution. [FRG Constitution, 1949]

Article 30 of the Constitution makes it clear who is responsible for their implementation:

Except as otherwise provided or permitted by this Basic Law, the exercise of state powers and the discharge of state functions is a matter for the Länder. [FRG Constitution, 1949]

The Länder, however, are not the only actors on the cultural policy stage. Cities and municipali-ties also have a constitutionally guaranteed right to their own decision-making and policies, as contained in Article 28 of the Act:

(2) Municipalities must be guaranteed the right to regulate all local affairs on their own responsibility, within the limits prescribed by the laws. Within the limits of their functions designated by a law, associations of municipali-ties shall also have the right of self-government according to the laws. [FRG Constitution, 1949]

It is perhaps significant that the word “culture” does not appear in the German Constitution, which does not mean, of course, that Germany does not have a defined framework and principles of cultural policy at home, nor that they do not promote their culture abroad.

Germany is a  federalist country in which culture is the essence of the autonomous 16 fed-eral states. It is therefore not the state but the individual Länder that mainly decide upon the promotion of the arts and artists. This is called the cultural sovereignty of the states (Kulturhoheit der Länder).

The general responsibilities at each level are as follows: y Municipalities are primarily responsible for

funding arts and culture, managing cultural institutions within their own budgets, making decisions in regards to the expansion, reduc-tion or maintenance of the cultural infrastruc-ture in their area;

y Federal States are primarily responsible for education and media policies;

y Federal Government is responsible for copy-right law, social policy (the Arts Fund), and cultural promotion abroad and art education. The idea of cultural federalism fits well within

the German mentality; the Germans are wary of treating cultural goods in the name of a national cause. The disastrous effects of National Socialism are surely at the core of this belief. Post World War Two, a belief arose that the avoidance of any ex-cessive semblance of national pathos would give the country an opportunity to return to the global community and change the perception of Ger-many. [http://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/pl/kultura] It seems that this type of thinking is encoded in the German mentality still today, whether it be in their sense of national identity, creating an image of national culture, or in the creation of national cultural policy.

As it turns out, Germany’s cultural policy model, based on the sovereignty of the Federal States, is not optimal and faces many difficul-ties, especially in the era of a  united Europe and globalisation. One of the primary prob-lems is Germany’s inability to come together as one voice when making decisions at the

Agnieszka Sokół-ArzGraduate of the Music Academy in Krakow (the violin class) and postgraduate studies of culture manage-ment at the Institute of Public Affairs, Faculty of Management and Social Communication, JU (B.A.). She studied at Hogeschool voor de Kun-sten in Utrechcie (The Netherlands), where she finished an international programme of media and culture manage-ment in the European context, obtaining M.A. degree, signed by the Open London Univer-sity. Currently she has finished working on her PhD dissertation at the Institute of Public Affairs, Faculty of Management and Social Communica-tion, in which she is concerned with the management in Polish and German cultural institutions and the cooperation between them. For 14 years she has lived in Germany, where she is a success-ful violinist, educator and culture manager. In 2009 she received the scholarship of Johanna Loewenherz Founda-tion for her artistic and pedagogic contribution, especially her engage-ment in building Polish – German relations.

Germany’s Cultural PolicyAgnieszka Sokół-Arz

Culture Management 2012, Vol 5 (5)

European Council. Germany is represented at the European Council for Cultural Affairs by the representatives of the Conference of Culture and Education Ministers of the Federal States and the Office of Foreign Affairs. Unlike even the youngest members of the EU, these representa-tives cannot have a  common goal since they represent organisations from different sectors and have no common legal basis. Olaf Zimmer-man, the President of the German Council for Culture, writes:

The danger in presenting the interests of the German education system and cultural policy in the European Union by representatives from varying federal states lies in the fact that they must agree on a position with their colleagues, while the representatives of the other countries have long since gone home. [Im Labyrinth…, 2005].

The heated discussions surrounding the cultural sovereignty of the Länder which broke out in the first five years of the 21st Century are on-going, and the fact that the importance of European laws will only grow in the future, rather than diminish, means that Germany will be forced to seek new solutions. [Im Labyrinth…, 2005].

Cultural policy does not only mean financial support for arts and culture. Above all, it is about creating a  general framework within which they can best develop. As in matters of tax and copyright law, as well as employment or social policy, this framework is largely impacted by laws imposed by the European Union.

The Federal States, however, each apply their own legal and economic solutions. The biggest flashpoint at present is the issue of harmonising the education system, because while individual Länder want to be the only ones to have their say in the matter, the Federal Government is pushing for a greater influence on these deci-sions.

A tendency has been observed only in the last decade of treating the issue of culture more glob-ally, which is reflected in the creation of several new bodies at Federal Government level. The position of State Minister for Culture and Media has been in existence at the Federal Chancellery in Berlin since 1998 (at the time, Michael Naumann became the first ever minister), as has the Com-mission for Culture and Media with a  subcom-mittee dealing with new media in the German Parliament. In 2002, the Federal Foundation for Culture was created.

CULTURAL POLICY AT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LEVEL

Germany’s cultural policy has the following objectives at Federal Government level, fo-

cusing on the State’s general responsibility within three tasks: y Improving the general conditions for the de-

velopment of art and culture. y Building and supporting major cultural institu-

tions nationwide. y Managing and protecting the national heritage

[http://www.kulturportal-deutschland.de].

THE SCOPE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S POWERS

Despite the cultural sovereignty of the Länder, respective Ministries and Offices of the Chan-

cery undertake certain tasks associated with the development of culture, [http://kultur-macht-europa.de] as outlined below: y Minister of State for Culture and Media (BKM)

at the Chancellor’s Office is responsible for the wider cultural policy and its support.

y Federal Minister for Social Affairs is subject to the Artists’ Social Fund (Künstlersozialkasse) which, among other things, helps with the costs of insurance for artists and journalists who are self-employed professionals.

y Ministry of Justice which deals with issues relating to copyright.

y Ministry of Economy which is an important partner in negotiating contracts relating to the promotion of culture by the state.

y Federal Ministry of Education which co-ordinates the overall framework and curricula in higher education (including art), as well as pilot projects in art education.

y Federal Ministry for Youth Affairs which estab-lishes a general plan, one which is a key tool in teaching the arts to children and young people.

y Office of Foreign Affairs which deals with the country’s cultural policy abroad. Amongst those institutes which report to it are the Goethe Institute and DAAD.

y Federal Ministry of Housing which is tasked with urban architecture.

y Federal Foundation for Culture [http://www.kulturstiftung-des-bundes.de] whose objective is to promote culture and art within the state, and whose primary task it is to support innovative projects and programs in an international context.

Culture Management 2012, Vol 5 (5)

CULTURE WITHIN THE FEDERAL STATES

Unlike many other European countries, where cultural affairs are managed centrally, Ger-

many’s cultural policy is adopted by individual cities at Federal State level. The consequence of this is that there are a huge number of cultural institutions managed by either the Länder or municipalities. This independence in cultural or-ganisation is an expression of the aforementioned cultural sovereignty enjoyed by the Federal States.

In consequence, cultural policy in Germany is dealt with by 63 Ministries, of which there are 16 Länder Ministries of Culture. [http://www.kultur-wirtschaft.de/kulturpolitik]

The following demonstrates the scope of com-petences at this level: y Ministries of Culture are responsible for cultural

policy at a general level, as well as its support. y Ministries of Education are tasked with school-

ing and further education, sometimes also with music schools (unfortunately, this happens fairly rarely because the majority of pre-college mu-sic schools in Germany are private institutions, at a very different level of education).

y Ministry of Social Affairs is responsible for youth work and the cultural education of chil-dren and young people.

y Chancery Offices. Their main area of activity is media policy. As of 2005, in the North Rhine Westphalia and Schleswig-Holstein areas, they are also responsible for the overall cultural policy. The differences in laws pertaining to the teach-

ing of the arts within the Federal States are consid-erable. For example, there is no clear and unified legal act concerning teaching in music schools. Any legal arrangements concerning the activities of these educational institutions are only valid in Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen and Saxony. As the other Federal States do not have any legal arrangements concerning this issue, there is no one specific curriculum implemented in music schools, most of which are largely private, not state funded. This has led to a lowering of standards amongst young musicians. Another issue is that there are no requirements regarding the competence of teach-ers, nor their earnings standardised. Each school has its own rules and fees.

This segmentation of the educational model in German music schools has prompted a divide between arts education in Germany and Poland. While even the first grade pupil in a Polish music school undergoes exams each semester, is sub-jected to numerous artistic performances, and must

follow a strict program set out by the Ministry of Culture and the Arts, the German pupil’s education is based solely on whatever his teacher proposes to do, and is, moreover, not controlled by any higher institution other than himself. You can, of course, argue that it is the latter model that leads to more creative artistic development and personal growth. The German teacher teaching an instrument has the possibility of adjusting the program to the level of the student, whereas the Polish student is rather tightly tied to the framework of the curriculum and must be very disciplined in order to succeed. It is significant, however, that very often, after a Polish pupil graduates at Grade 2 level from music school (which is also known as a professional Baccalaure-ate), they no longer wish to pursue music within higher education. In fact, most do not want to have any contact with their instrument. In Germany, on the other hand, there is a large number of amateur bands – orchestras, choirs, all at a very high level of competence, playing programs which in Poland can only ever be heard in concert halls with the participation of professional musicians.

THE STANDING CONFERENCE OF THE MINISTERS OF EDUCATION AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS OF THE LÄNDER

As sovereignty is constitutionally guaranteed, policies, as well as legal and economic ar-

rangements, may differ among individual Federal States. It was hence necessary to call together an organisation that would be devoted to coordinat-ing and attempting, at least to a certain extent, to contribute to the harmonisation of these laws. This organisation is the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder, based in Bonn and Berlin. The origins of this institution date back to 1948, even before the country had been constituted.

In accordance with its official statutes, the Standing Conference concerns itself with

issues relating to educational policy at school and university level and research policy, as well as cultural policy of supraregional importance, with the aim of achieving joint opinion and decision-making and of representing joint concerns. [Geschäftsordnung…].

One key task of the Standing Conference [http://www.kmk.org] is to ensure the highest possible degree of mobility throughout Germany for pupils, students, teaching personnel and those

Culture Management 2012, Vol 5 (5)

working in the academic sector by means of con-sensus and cooperation. The following tasks are derived from this: y to agree on the equivalence and comparability

of certificates and final qualifications, y to work towards safeguarding quality stand-

ards in schools, vocational training and higher education,

y to promote cooperation among educational, scientific and cultural institutions.

The Standing Conference is an important instrument for representing the common in-terests of the Länder in relation to the Federal Government and the European Union, as well as for presenting a  single public stance of the Länder. It is simultaneously an instrument in the partnership between the Federal Government and the Länder as regards foreign cultural policy and cultural cooperation abroad. As training regulations are the responsibility of the Federal Government, while vocational training provided in schools lies with the competence of the Länder, there is a necessity for the coordination in this field between the Federal Government and the Standing Conference.

The Standing commissions are: y Commission for European and International

Affairs y Commission for Statistics y Sports Commission y Education Commission y Sub-committee for Vocational Training and

Further Education y Schools Committee for Further Education, Re-

search and Training y Sub-committee for Medicine in Institutions of

Higher Education y Cultural Affairs Committee y Committee on Educational Affairs Abroad

OTHER CULTURAL ORGANISATIONS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE FEDERATION

Although cultural policy is decided upon within three levels, and the majority of decisions are

made at the Länder and municipality level, we must also look at the other cultural organisations (in addition to the administrative bodies) that decide upon a  range of federal laws. The most important of these are: The German Cultural Council (Deutsche Kulturrat) and The Political and Cultural Society (Kulturpolitische Gesellschaft).

The German Cultural Council is the umbrella organisation of many cultural institutions and a dialogue partner for the Federation, Länder and the European Union in talks and discussions on all broad issues of cultural policy. It was founded in 1981 as a politically independent working group of cultural and media organisations. In 1995, it became a  non-profit association with public accountability. It currently includes 233 cultural institutions [http://www.kulturrat.de], grouped within the eight following sections: y German Music Council y Council for the Performing Arts and Dance y German Literary Conference y German Arts Council y Council for Architecture y Design Section y Film and Audiovisual Section y Council for Socio-cultural and Cultural Education.

The organisation also publishes a bi-monthly magazine, “Politik and Kultur”, which deals with cultural and political issues.

The Political and Cultural Society (Kultur-politische Gesellschaft) is an organisation unbound by party affiliation, bringing together interested and dedicated people working in the fields of culture from all political parties, and which is a forum for discussions around socio-cultural af-fairs. [http://www.kupoge.de] The Society was founded in 1976 in Hamburg on the back of the wave of the reforms of the 70s. Their motto back then was, “Dare for more democracy.” It has been based in Bonn since 1996. Its main objectives are to accelerate the processes of democracy, develop opportunities for all citizens to actively participate in cultural activities, create innovation in traditional cultural offerings, support scientific research in the field of culture, as well as enhance the benefits of experience in Europe and internationally in cultural policy for the German State. [Satzung…]

ATTEMPTS TO ASSESS THE CURRENT STATE OF GERMANY’S CULTURAL POLICY

The Federal Government founded a  special Study Commission on Culture (Enquete-Kom-

mission) in 2005. It consisted of representatives across all parties, as well as external experts, whose aim was to independently and impartially examine the current state of culture in Germany.

A comprehensive final report (consisting of no less than 500 pages) was published after three

Culture Management 2012, Vol 5 (5)

years of intensive research, and was the first such document to be published in over 30 years.

In addition to the rundown of cultural institu-tions and current cultural policy, it contains many recommendations and critical comments, weigh-ing up culture as one the most important tasks of society, because, as the chairman of the Com-mission, Gitta Connemann, writes in her preface to the report:

Culture is not an ornament, rather the founda-tion upon which our society stands and upon which we build our future. That which remains of a society is its culture. [Schlussbericht…, 2008]

Universal access to cultural heritage is also an obligation of the state towards its citizens for another reason:

Financing culture in our country is a burden the citizen bears. Firstly as its recipient, secondly as the benefactor, and thirdly as the taxpayer. [Schlussbericht…, 2008]

One of the most important recommendations made by the Study Commission is a proposal to amend the Constitution on matters pertaining to the state having a greater influence on cultural affairs. This recommendation was immediately supported by organisations such as the German Music Council (Deutsche Musikrat) and the Ger-man Arts Council (Deutsche Kulturrat), and by the German Musicians Association (Deutsche Tonkün-stlerverband) on 6th March 2010 at its last national gathering. However, this recommendation once again (the last time being in 2004-2005) caused national debate on the merits of the proposed changes because the Federal States were not eager to share their powers.

Other recommendations in the aforementioned report include: y “The Commission recommends that the Federal

Government focus on and systematise cultural policy, as it ought to be coherent with the State’s domestic and foreign policy.

y The Research Commission recommends bet-ter cooperation between the Federation and Länder and a  mutual flow of information in order that a  common approach can be de-veloped when Germany represents itself on the European stage. In negotiations with the EU, Germany must be a partner which holds a single position, and which has the authority to make decisions on the part of the Fedration and the Länder.

y The Commission also proposes that the “new management model” process should be inten-sified, in which the competences of individual Länder would be taken into account, but where the Federation would have much greater pow-ers.” [Schlussbericht…, 2008]As you can see from the above recommenda-

tions, there is a tendency to want to centralise cultural policy, or at the very least, to have a greater control and uniformity over it. This leads us to presume that the cultural sovereignty of the Federal States is not the optimal model of cultural management.

In an interview for the WDR television station, Siegmund Ehrmann, a  representative from the SPD (Social Democrats) party, and spokesman for cultural policy, as well as the Vice Chairman of the Committee for Culture and Media in North Rhine Westphalia, claimed that in view of the looming European economic crisis, and despite German spending 2.6% of its GDP on culture, and as well as cultural industry ranking third, it would be difficult, if at all possible, to safeguard this present state of affairs. Each of the levels must look to fulfilling their role properly. Although the budget for culture has increased at the level of the Federation, it must not take over the role of the Federal States and local governments. These lat-ter levels must decide how to allocate their funds to best develop the cultural infrastructure. These decisions are crucial in enabling and supporting cultural education, which is in turn essential to maintaining the culture of the country at an appro-priate standard. It is also important in providing an active cultural life and a high level of culture in larger cities. At the very least, provisions should be made for theatres, concert halls and festivals because a town without these cultural institutions is not a town worth living in. Ehrmann also regrets that too many theatres, libraries, orchestras and music schools have been closed down in recent years. [Ehrmann, 2009]

The situation faced by music schools is particu-larly grim. As has been mentioned above, because municipalities cannot afford to finance or, in many cases, even subsidise these institutions, many of them are financed privately by parents and run by random individuals. It should also be noted that due to lack of funds from cities and municipalities, many orchestras have had to look for alternatives, such as funding from private individuals, merging with other orchestras, or simply ceasing to exist.

Literature:

Ehrmannan Siegmund, an interview, broadcast on the WDR television station on 2nd September, 2009.

Geschäftsordnung der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusmin-ister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.

Im Labyrinth der Kulturzuständigkeit: Ein Handbuch, Die Kulturverwaltung der Länder, des Bundes und der Eu-ropäischer Union“, Deutscher Kulturrat e.V., Berlin 2005.

Satzung der Kulturpolitischen Gesellschaft e.V., Bonn, 27.06.1997.

Schlussbericht der Enquete-Kommision „Kultur in Deutschland“, Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, Bonn 2008.