Tony Blair and Gerhard Schröder were both elected in the late 1990s. But whereas Blair's government toughened law and order policies in the UK, the German Social Democrats did not follow suit. Georg Wenzelburger writes that the ministers involved, as well as the balance of power within each government go some way in explaining why

Wenzelburger, Georg

LSE Research Online

Law	and	order	in	the	’90s:	why	Blair	and	Schröderimplemented	very	different	policiesTony	Blair	and	Gerhard	Schröder	were	both	elected	in	the	late	1990s.	But	whereas	Blair’sgovernment	toughened	law	and	order	policies	in	the	UK,	the	German	Social	Democrats	did	notfollow	suit.	Georg	Wenzelburger	writes	that	the	ministers	involved,	as	well	as	the	balance	of	powerwithin	each	government	go	some	way	in	explaining	why.It	may	seem	unthinkable	today,	but	social	democratic	parties	were	flourishing	in	many	Europeancountries	in	the	mid-1990s.	When	Britain’s	Tony	Blair,	Sweden’s	Göran	Perrsson,	and	the	GermanChancellor	Gerhard	Schröder	met	at	European	summits	in	Brussels,	they	discussed	mainly	with	Socialdemocratic	party	fellows	such	as	the	Dane	Poul	Nyrup	Rasmussen,	the	Dutch	Wim	Kok,	the	Austrian	ViktorKlima,	or	the	Greek	Konstantinos	Simitis.	Although	notable	variations	did	certainly	exist	between	countries,	a	bigpart	of	this	success	story	of	European	Social	democrats	during	this	time	was	a	re-invention	and	repositioning	oftheir	party	family	as	parties	of	the	“third	way”.A	particularly	close	relationship	existed	between	New	Labour’s	Tony	Blair	and	Germany’s	Chancellor	GerhardSchröder	who,	in	June	1999	presented	a	common	manifesto	entitled	“Europe	–	The	Third	Way/Die	Neue	Mitte”.Whereas	much	has	been	written	on	the	social	and	economic	policy	agenda	of	these	third	way	social	democrats,the	programme	also	included	a	less	well-known	but	nonetheless	pronounced	law	and	order	agenda.	The	newslogan	was	“tough	on	crime,	tough	on	the	causes	of	crime”	–	a	soundbite	which	Blair	successfully	used	in	the1997	campaign	and	the	German	SPD	copied,	making	it	a	headline	in	its	1998	manifesto.What	is	puzzling,	however,	is	that	the	policy	output	differs	starkly	between	the	two	governments.	If	one	collectsand	codes	data	on	the	legislation	adopted	by	the	two	governments,	one	clearly	sees	a	sharp	tightening	of	law	andorder	policies	in	Britain	after	Blair	took	office	with	landmark	legislation	such	as	the	Crime	and	Disorder	Act	1998.In	stark	contrast,	although	the	Schröder	government	did	issue	some	tougher	terrorism	legislation	after	9/11,	theGerman	policy	output	is	by	no	means	comparable	to	the	policy	path	taken	in	Britain	(see	Figure	below).Figure	1a:	Adopted	Bills	on	Law	and	Order	in	the	UKFigure	1b:	Adopted	Bills	on	Law	and	Order	in	GermanyBritish Politics and Policy at LSE: Law and order in the ’90s: why Blair and Schröder implemented very different policies Page 1 of 3		Date originally posted: 2017-10-05Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/law-and-order-in-blair-and-schroder-governments/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/Note:	The	charts	are	based	on	a	qualitative	coding	of	legislation	in	terms	of	breadth	(number	of	people	concerned)	and	depth	(profoundness	of	change	instatus	quo)	(cf.	Wenzelburger	and	Staff).	Positive	values	indicate	changes	in	a	more	repressive	direction	(3:	large,	2:	medium,	1:	small);	negative	valuesindicate	changes	in	a	more	liberal	direction	(again	from	-3:	large,	to	-1:	small).In	a	recent	study,	we	examined	this	puzzle	more	closely.	Interestingly,	one	of	the	main	approaches	to	explainingpolicy	outputs	–	partisan	theory	–	does	not	seem	to	hold	here.	Although	Gerhard	Schröder	had	to	deal	with	theGreen	party	as	junior	partner	in	his	coalition,	the	two	most	important	ministries	–	the	Ministry	of	the	Interior	andthe	Ministry	of	Justice	–	were	held	by	the	SPD.	Moreover,	evidence	from	elite	interviews	with	key	actors	of	thetime	suggest	that	the	Greens	were	mostly	concerned	with	environmental	policy	and	foreign	policy	decisions,	butnot	with	questions	of	law	and	order.	Instead,	after	a	close	tracing	of	the	policy	processes	based	on	elite	interviewsand	an	analysis	of	primary	and	secondary	sources,	what	emerges	as	the	main	explanation	of	the	differencebetween	the	two	countries	is	mainly	a	story	of	the	relevance	of	ministries	and	individual	ministers.Two	points	stand	out:	first,	the	German	system	was	characterised	by	two	ministries	with	opposing	views	on	lawand	order	policies	–	Interior	and	Justice	–	whereas	British	Home	Secretaries	had	no	countervailing	power	incabinet	to	deal	with.	In	Germany,	the	Ministry	of	Justice	repeatedly	pointed	to	the	relevance	of	civil	rights	asguaranteed	by	the	constitution	when	proposals	from	the	Interior	were	too	far-reaching.	In	some	cases,	thisdynamic	effectively	made	legislation	much	less	repressive.	Instead,	the	absence	of	a	strong	Ministry	of	Justice	inBritain	meant	that	the	Home	Office	set	the	agenda	alone.Second,	personal	convictions	of	the	relevant	ministers	played	an	important	role.	In	Germany,	the	first	Minister	ofJustice	in	the	Schröder	government,	Däubler-Gmelin,	had	a	strong	position	within	the	party	and	represented	amore	liberal	strand	in	terms	of	penal	policies.	This	enabled	her	to	stand	up	against	pressures	from	the	Ministry	ofthe	Interior,	although	Chancellor	Schröder	generally	supported	the	Minister	of	the	Interior	in	such	cases.Encouraged	by	her	ministerial	staff,	Däubler-Gmelin	managed	to	soften	some	of	the	tougher	measures	that	wereinitially	proposed	by	the	Interior.	In	Britain,	it	was	David	Blunkett	in	particular	who	had	strong	personal	interest	inlaw	and	order	issues.	Having	experienced	societal	degradation	and	disorder	throughout	his	youth,	he	pushed	lawand	order	issues	on	the	agenda	and	proposed	a	series	of	tough	bills.	Moreover,	Tony	Blair	himself	was	interestedin	a	tough	law	and	order	agenda	–	he	directly	interfered	and	made	sure	that	the	policy	path	was	firmly	set.Hence,	our	study	concludes	that	the	fact	that	the	German	social	democrats	mainly	paid	lip	service	to	the	slogan“tough	on	crime	and	the	causes	of	crime”	whereas	the	British	New	Labour	governments	clearly	adopted	a	morerepressive	stance,	can	be	mainly	explained	by	the	institutional	structure	of	the	governments	and	Ministries	as	wellas	by	personal	convictions	of	individual	ministers.	This	result	emphasizes	the	importance	of	opening	up	the	blackbox	of	government	and	looking	at	the	preferences	and	balance	of	power	between	individuals	within	governments,when	explaining	policy	outputs	–	a	claim	that	is	gaining	more	prominence	in	political	science.British Politics and Policy at LSE: Law and order in the ’90s: why Blair and Schröder implemented very different policies Page 2 of 3		Date originally posted: 2017-10-05Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/law-and-order-in-blair-and-schroder-governments/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/_______Note:	the	above	draws	on	The	‘third	way’	and	the	politics	of	law	and	order:	Explaining	differences	in	law	and	orderpolicies	between	Blair’s	New	Labour	and	Schröder’s	SPD,	published	in	the	European	Journal	of	PoliticalResearch	(DOI:	10.1111/1475-6765.12202).About	the	AuthorGeorg	Wenzelburger	is	Professor	of	Political	Science	at	the	University	of	Kaiserslautern.			All	articles	posted	on	this	blog	give	the	views	of	the	author(s),	and	not	the	position	of	LSE	British	Politics	andPolicy,	nor	of	the	London	School	of	Economics	and	Political	Science.	Featured	image	credit:	Pixabay/PublicDomain.British Politics and Policy at LSE: Law and order in the ’90s: why Blair and Schröder implemented very different policies Page 3 of 3		Date originally posted: 2017-10-05Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/law-and-order-in-blair-and-schroder-governments/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/

Law and order in the '90s: why Blair and Schröder implemented very different policies

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online