A lesson in German political history for Gordon Brown's critics in the UK

 

History, they say, is the study of events that do not repeat themselves. But there are nevertheless some uncanny parallels between the debate in the UK about Gordon Brown’s suitability as prime minister and a similar debate in West Germany in 1974. Then, large parts of the German establishment had serious doubts about the suitability for high office of Helmut Schmidt, who was finance minister at the time, with a reputation not dissimilar to that of the British chancellor of the exchequer today.

I do not want to overemphasise the parallels or predict that Mr Brown is going to be a great prime minister merely because Mr Schmidt turned out to be a great statesman. But the German debate in 1974 may serve as a warning to some of Mr Brown’s critics, who believe they can easily extrapolate from his current performance and political style. One of those critics was Lord Turnbull, a former cabinet secretary, who said in a Financial Times interview that Mr Brown operated at the UK treasury with “Stalinist ruthlessness”.

 

This is approximately what they used to say about Mr Schmidt in Germany back in 1974 – except that the language was more restrained. An economist by training, Mr Schmidt was regarded as intellectually arrogant, lacking in warmth and, yes, ruthless. He had the nickname “Schmidt Schnauze” – roughly translated as foul-mouthed and obnoxious.

His critics also accused him of scheming against Willy Brandt, who at the time of his resignation as West German chancellor was hugely popular in the party and the country. When Mr Schmidt succeeded Brandt in May 1974, he had huge shoes to fill and many people thought he would never measure up to the Ubervater. Just as in the Labour party today, there were camps in the Social Democratic party, one pro-Brandt, another pro-Schmidt. One of Brandt’s most loyal lieutenants, Horst Ehmke, who recently turned 80, recalled in his memoirs that he served as Brandt’s lightning rod against Mr Schmidt. The rivalry between the camps was intense.

This episode in German politics was well documented in Michael Frayn’s play, Democracy, performed a few years ago in London, New York and Berlin. Some critics viewed the play as an allegory of the Blair/Brown relationship. I would not take those comparisons too far, either. The nature of the rivalries was different, Mr Schmidt never expected to become chancellor until fairly late and there was certainly no deal between the two.

Those who criticised Mr Schmidt’s suitability for the job turned out to be wrong. His first two years in office as chancellor may have been uninspiring, but two events subsequently shaped his tenure – terrorism and the macroeconomic disturbances that resulted from the oil price shocks. Looking back on his period in office, one remembers his uncompromising stance towards the Red Army Faction terrorists in 1977 and his joint initiative, together with Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the former French president, to create the European Monetary System. The EMS was a precursor to today’s monetary union.

The success of his term in office owed much to the way he responded to these specific crises. It was the office that shaped the man. Neither of these crises were foreseeable in 1974. Indeed, if Brandt had not been forced to resign over a spy scandal and had remained in office throughout the 1970s, it is not clear at all that he would have responded to the crises of the late 1970s with the same courage and determination.

Some of the criticisms currently hurled at Mr Brown are of a similar quality. He reads too many books, is not good at small talk, takes too long to make political decisions, lacks spontaneity, does not have many friends, acts Machiavellian. While even his critics acknowledge that he has probably been the most successful British chancellor in living memory, they say that it requires a different set of skills to run a country than to a run a treasury.

This is no doubt true, but it is just as true that successful political leadership comes in different flavours. Good leaders are not all alike and sometimes they change while in office. There may be times when you would want a political leader to think for more than five minutes before taking a country to war, joining a monetary union or deciding whether or not to hold a referendum on the European Constitution.

I am making no predictions about a Brown premiership. His critics may yet turn out be right, but then probably for the wrong reasons. I would not be surprised if the anti-Brown criticisms of today look just as odd three years from now as the anti-Schmidt rhetoric of 1974 did in 1977.

munchau(at)eurointelligence.com

The Financial Times Limited 2007

---