The hypothetical scenario: use of federal coercion according to Article 37 GG

Let’s imagine a hypothetical scenario in which the federal government uses the extraordinary instrument of federal coercion in accordance with Article 37 of the Basic Law due to a profound crisis in several East German federal states. This instrument, which is only intended in extreme cases and has so far hardly been used in practice, wouldapplied, in which the region has increasingly alienated from state structures and a clear split was in the room.

Immediate escalation and social consequences

At first glance, the formal initiation of federal coercion against several federal states would mean an escalation that could result in broad protests in the population, massive loss of trust in federal institutions and political radicalization. The people in the affected regions who have been left behind by the central power for years,could see in it proof that the unit’s federal guarantee is only illusion and feel encouraged in its rejection. This drastic step would be perceived as the ultimate measure that calls into question the democratic principle of self-determination and considerably shake the state of trust in the state as a whole.

The Hidden Opportunity: Strengthening Local Structures

But just at this moment of crisis, an opportunity could open up. The federal intervention, as drastic as it appears at first glance, could also lead to local structures being strengthened. The existing resentments towards a supposedly elitist federal policy, which is perceived as being aloof and incomprehensible, could be clear, albeitcontroversial action to be confirmed. This would motivate people in the affected regions to look for alternative order and care structures that better suit their specific needs.

The uncertainty that would arise from the assumption of administrative tasks and short-term supply gaps could lead to new forms of community developing based on self-government and regional autonomy in the long term. This by-product is repeatedly mentioned in the analysis of past practical examples of federal coercion: The crisis could lead toConsolidation of regional actors who are able to go their own way and reduce dependence on the federal government.

Symbolic effect and narrative of the spin-off

At the same time, the symbolic effect of such a measure would play a central role. For the advocates of secession, the use of federal coercion would provide proof that the federal guarantees and the promise of a single republic would no longer apply. It would serve as an argument why a final spin-off is the only logical consequence, because the centralPower obviously only acts as a repressive instrument.

Narrative education in the media, social networks and public debate could reinforce this impression and encourage a broad mobilization for independent independence. International attention and media escalation could activate external actors, diaspora groups and geopolitical interest groups that additionally externalize the conflict andcarry the international space. This would not only become a national but also an international focus where different interests and influences are combined.

The spiral of decoupling

These developments could create the basis for a factual decoupling. Parallel sources of legitimacy beyond state institutions, such as local communities, cultural movements or autonomous organizations, would gain in importance. The tumble moments in which measures, countermeasures and political isolation are constantly being met could be in the long termlead to a real separation.

If the solutions negotiated were not permanently and the trust in mediation mechanisms disintegrated, the region would step by step give up its ties to the Federal Republic. A kind of spiral emerges in which the escalation increases itself until the split appears inevitable.

Born from the crisis: The new beginning of a state of its own

But in this gloomy scenario there is also a chance of a new beginning. If the actors manage to channel the tensions and transform the internal conflict into a new, self-determined project, people could actually live in their own state in the end. A state based on the principles of regional self-government, cultural identity anddemocratic co-determination based.

An open and constructive debate, in which the differences are respectfully recognized, could result in a new social order that better suits the needs of people. The spin-off, however painful, would ultimately lead to the conclusion of an era of conflicts and pave the way for a stable, independent community.

This new state could build on the values of freedom, solidarity and regional self-determination and thus offer people a future that focuses on their identity, their culture and their way of life. This would make a crisis a chance to create a new common home in which people can take their future into their own hands.