f) Having a strong leader in government is good for Germany even if the leader bends the rules to get things done. [Eine starke Führungspersönlichkeit in der Regierung zu haben ist gut für Deutschland, auch wenn diese sich nicht so genau an die Regeln hält um Dinge Vorwärts zu bringen.]

Ja

Six respondents “strongly agree“ (ID 10, 11) or “somewhat agree” (ID 01, 04, 07, 16) with this statement, while five respondents “somewhat disagree” (ID 02, 05) or “strongly disagree” (ID 03, 12, 15). Four respondents answer with “neither agree nor disagree” (ID 06, 08, 09, 14), while one respondent “doesn’t know” (ID 13).

It is obvious that all respondents favor a strong leader in government („Someone with a clear-cut profile, who isn’t afraid to go against the current, even if there is resistance from their own party.”, ID 12). Some respondents (e.g. ID 07, 11) think of specific politicians, such as Angela Merkel, Helmut Schmidt or Lothar Späth, when hearing the term „strong leader“.

Respondent 13, who answered “don’t know” also agrees on the importance of a strong leader, however faces a “moral dilemma” due to the second part of the sentence “even if the leader bends the rules to get things done”.

Those respondents who agree with the statement explain that the end justifies the means:

• “If the decisions are right for the people, then sometimes they have to be made even if they are not quite within the framework. Here, the end justifies the means. If it is for the good of the country, it can be done occasionally.” (ID 04)
• “If the end justifies the mean and is not that bad, then it’s alright.” (ID 10))

In contrast, those respondents who do not agree with the statement argue that while a strong leader is of importance, abiding by the law is more important:

• “Well I am in favor of a strong leader, who is charismatic, has a certain presence and is assertive. But I think everyone needs to abide by certain rules.” (ID 02)
• “While this strong leader surely would be helpful, bending the laws at one’s whim? You can see what this leads to in Turkey. I am strictly against that.” (ID 12)

Those four respondents who “neither agree nor disagree“ believe that while a strong leader in the government is important, so is playing by the rules (“I do think it is important to have a strong leader, but at what cost? Bending the rules does bother me.”, ID 06)

Finally, the respondents were asked to name specific examples, where a strong leader bent the rules to get things done. Merkel’s refugee policy was frequently listed (ID 01, 02, 07, 08, 11). Some respondents thought of non-compliance with current laws (ID 06, 10, 12, 13, 14), while others drew comparisons to dictators (Kim Yong Un, Adolf Hitler) or “autocrats” (Erdogan, Putin) who draw up legislation to their whim (ID 03, 05, 12). It must be noted that the phrase “bend the rules to get things done” allows for a large scope of interpretation. While some respondents think of rather severe misdemeanors (i.e. breaking the law), others think of trivial offences (such as non-coordinated action with the general party opinion). In the letter case, the respondents tend to agree with the statement, whereas the respondents disagree in the former case.

Due to the finding that the wording „auch wenn diese sich nicht so genau an Regeln hält um Dinge vorwärts zu bringen“ („bend the rules to get things done”) leaves room for interpretation and is understood as „violating the laws“ by some respondents, we recommend to modify the item:

„Having a strong leader in government is good for Germany, even if the leader now and then decides things single-handedly to get things done."
["Eine starke Führungspersönlichkeit in der Regierung zu haben ist gut für Deutschland, auch wenn diese ab und zu Dinge im Alleingang entscheidet, um sie voran zu bringen."]

false