The Economist turns its attention to Germany’s Pegida. Pegida? That’s Patriotische Europäer Gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes (or Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West).

As I have noted before, I have reservations about aspects of this movement (and its leading figure certainly has an, um, unusual resume), but reading this in The Economist, well….

Germans must “rethink their identity”, Mr Schiffauer argues [He’s the head of Germany’s Migration Council, something best described as an academic network with something of an agenda]. Instead of the traditional ethnic definition of nationality, they should move to a “republican” one, as in America or France, which is open to newcomers. German law on dual citizenship has slowly moved in this direction, as has public acceptance in bigger cities and the west. But pockets such as Saxony lag behind. The Migration Council recommends setting up a commission to push awareness in the right direction.

Perhaps it’s just me, but “a commission to push awareness in the right direction” sounds a touch sinister, but not, it would seem, to The Economist, a magazine, we should never forget, of Davos, rather than classical, liberalism.

Deutsche Welle has more:

Schiffauer and his colleagues are calling for a national commission made up of political scientists, members of civil society and politics that would draw up a national guideline to “embrace diversity” and influence school curricula. The researchers said similar guidelines resulted in “positive change” in Canada and the US.

“Influence school curricula”.

Back to The Economist:

A new party, Alternative for Germany, which is anti-euro and now also anti-foreigner, is openly flirting with Pegida.

“Anti-foreigner?”

That is an interesting way to describe (fully justified) skepticism about Germany’s immigration policy.

As for the “flirting”, that ought to be something that The Economist should welcome. There are undoubtedly unsavory elements who have been attracted to Pegida. But it’s also true that Pegida represents some legitimate concerns about mass immigration and multiculturalism, concerns that need to be incorporated into the regular democratic debate (where they can, of course, be either rejected or accepted) rather than left to fester outside. Alternative for Germany (AfD), a party that, in its willingness to challenge some of the stale and destructive orthodoxies of the country’s political class, has so far proved to be an encouraging addition to German political scene, ought to be a good medium for that.

The Economist:

The CSU, a conservative party that governs Bavaria and is allied to Mrs Merkel’s Christian Democrats, also sounds empathetic with the Dresden marchers, hoping not to be outflanked on the right. The rest of the political spectrum, however, appears united in opposing the implicit xenophobia of Pegida’s message.

After pausing briefly to note the assumptions that must have run through that finding of “implicit xenophobia”, let’s take time to understand what The Economist means by “political spectrum”. It doesn’t mean public opinion, it means the political class. Pegida does not enjoy majority popular support (very far from it), but it’s a little misleading to use language suggesting that it represents a some small sliver of society.

Deutsche Welle:

A recent opinion poll found that one in eight Germans would join an anti-Islamization march if it were organized in their home town. The poll, published last Thursday by Forsa for Germany’s Stern magazine, also found 29 percent of those interviewed believed that Islam was having such a strong influence on life in Germany that the marches were justified.

That poll was taken before yesterday’s atrocity in Paris.

The Economist:

Gerhard Schröder, Mrs Merkel’s predecessor as chancellor, has called for an “uprising of the decent” [against Pegida].

That would be the same Schröder discussed by Spiegel Online in this piece from May:

Guests from the worlds of business and politics waited for more than an hour last Monday night at St. Petersburg’s Yusupovsky Palace wondering if the Russian president would make an appearance. Officials at Nord Stream AG had gathered to celebrate the 70th birthday of former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, head of the shareholder committee of the company, which operates a natural gas pipeline between Russia and Germany.
The Kremlin had indicated that Vladimir Putin would be late because of events relating to the Ukraine crisis and possibly wouldn’t be able to make it at all. But then his limousine pulled up — and Schröder was there immediately to greet the president. The ensuing embrace couldn’t have been more heartfelt.

The Guardian (from 2005):

Germany’s former chancellor Gerhard Schröder was yesterday at the centre of damaging allegations of sleaze over his decision to accept a lucrative job with Russia’s biggest company.
Opposition MPs joined forces to denounce Mr Schröder – who last week confirmed that he was to become chairman of state-controlled Russian giant Gazprom’s North European Gas Pipeline company. Mr Schröder was accused of bringing German politics into disrepute and of “cronyism” and “corruption”.
Mr Schröder signed the controversial pipeline deal for a $6bn (£3.4bn) gas link between Germany and Russia under the Baltic Sea with Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, just two weeks before leaving office.

Not, perhaps, an obvious spokesman for “the decent”.