SPD and Union – coalition agreement: a disappointment in terms of cultural policy

What are the cultural policy projects in the coalition agreement between the CDU and SPD? Each sentence is a commitment to the good. The “cultural participation of all people” is in mind, as well as the rural areas, which should finally gain access to culture. In addition, one wants to be inclusive, diverse and anti -racist in all projects. Accordingly, “legally recognized national minorities in Germany” should be given “specific funding”. This is supposed to create all cultural policy that is celebrated as the “foundation of our freedom”.

However, it does not seem quite so clear that it requires a secure, financial basis. While nothing remained unmentioned in the coalition agreement of the failed traffic lights that had to be supported-including the club scene, the games industry, the artist’s social security fund and the libraries-the CDU and SPD are more likely to relate. Instead of promoting innovative focus, established programs such as “culture power” or “culture in rural spaces” are continued and puts others to the test, but so casually that hardly anyone is noticeable in the course. Whether there will continue to be the cultural pass, a model of success that will bring the younger ones to artistic institutions and works or will give a “structural publishing funding” in the future. Probably because the necessary resources for the rich confessional prose are missing. Instead, there are often references to non-governmental donors: “Culture sponsorship, patronage, private foundations and business cooperation can enable more culture.”

“Customs, amateur culture and music” can look forward to higher means and established institutions are empty.

According to one of the few curiosities in the design, at least “customs, amateur culture and music” are happy about higher means, established institutions go away empty -handed. You are politely invite you to look around the market. Or no longer calls them by name. At no point, for example, the term theater falls. In view of the serious savings rounds in almost all countries, the stage houses urgently need reasonable grants. On the one hand, they are asked to position themselves against anti -democratic endeavors in Sunday speeches, on the other hand, the basis of their actions is more and more removed from them.

About external cultural policy states that it is “important element of the Soft Power Germany and thus a strategic instrument in global competition for reputation, influence, narrative, ideas and values”. What does that mean in numbers? Who already knows that? Certainly it is only: If you see from the usual expressions of will on memorial culture and further restitution efforts, all rights and authoritarian threats are disregarded. When would Goethe Institutes and intercultural exchange programs be fully equipped than more important than in an era of recess dictatorships?

This also applies to domestic. In East Germany, right -wing radicals already influence budgets through budget negotiations and thus soon indirectly on programmatic orientations in cultural institutions. To make the latter more independent through long -term financing models and to grant them more personal responsibility in the choice of their management staff without too much say in the administrations, which would have been inherent in a further “future coalition”.

Another central challenge of our day is overlooked, namely artificial intelligence. For them, which is completely turned on the book and film industry and threatens to undermine traditional remuneration systems, you only have three sentences (but with your own heading): It »increases the possibilities of human creativity enormously. It offers great artistic and cultural potential when copyrights are preserved and artificially generated content remain recognizable. We develop a strategy ›Kultur & Ki« with the countries. » You move the planned to the future, while progress in this segment can hardly be broken. Where are labeling obligations? Where the urgently needed regulations? Where the corresponding leveling of the copyright law?

Rather, it seems as if not cultural, but economic politicians have written the corresponding passages. They want to improve the “competitiveness of the film location”. You also strive for reduction in bureaucracy and rely on “tax incentives” to keep the engine of the “creative economy” going. Instead of a vision for actors, musicians and authors, this language sounds more like a concept for endangered medium -sized companies.

In general, the private sector should compensate for the withdrawal of the state. We have rarely dealt with a coalition agreement that bluntly expresses the lack of interest in culture and leaves it in a clamping house. Creative professionals may have difficult times.