In mid-February, “Arche” founder Bernd Siggelkow published his book “The Crime Against Our Children”. Citizens' money is a thorn in his side. He tells Ippen.Media why.
Berlin - Months ago, Bernd Siggelkow expressed clear criticism of citizens' money and the politics of the traffic light coalition. In his book, the trained theologian calls, among other things, for the abolition of citizens' benefits for those unwilling to work, for significant investments in children's education and for higher basic child security. We asked around.
Mr. Siggelkow, what is the ark doing?
The Arche looks after children who are exposed to social challenges, so the issue of child poverty is of course a very big one for us. This is often about financial poverty, but also emotional poverty. We give them free lunch and school help, they can do sports or music - and above all, they can be children. Unfortunately, this is often no longer possible due to their social status.
What made you want to found the Ark?
I have always done children and youth work throughout my life, since I was 16 years old. After I came to Berlin in 1991, I discovered that many children face major challenges. At that time, Hellersdorf was the district with the largest number of children in Europe, and at the same time there were up to 70 percent single parents. The children could not develop.
Citizens’ money as a “crime against children” – Arche founder settles accounts
Were today's problems already foreseeable back then?
It was clear what would happen if politics did not create the right framework conditions. That's why the first ark was built there. What was important to me was that the key to a person's heart is not the program. You don't change a child's life through a program, but through love and relationships.
They describe citizens' money as a crime against children. What is that supposed to mean?
In Germany we now need four to five generations to get out of poverty. Compared to 2001, the number of poor children has tripled and births have declined. In the end, the government did nothing except introduce Hartz IV, introduce citizens' money and just provide support. In my opinion the government needs to subsidize instead of providing support. This is primarily about the work of the parents - ultimately they must have better opportunities, also so that their children see them as role models.
But what are the weaknesses of citizen money?
I find it difficult when some people today simply don't feel like working and still receive money. I'm not talking about those who can't be employed or who receive citizen's benefit for health reasons, but rather about those who really refuse to work because they don't feel like it. They then rely on the government to give them money. They get the same increase as the single mother who submits 30 applications a year and receives rejections because she has elementary school children and would have to stay at home in the event of illness.
In such cases, the money should go directly to the employer. For example, he can pay a 40-hour position for a mother who works 30 hours and then has to be with her children. Then she doesn't have to keep running to the job center. In Berlin Heimersdorf we have the most people who have to pay citizen's benefit in addition to their salary. That doesn't work. Children must see their parents as role models, then they will also become role models. That's why you should simply leave citizens' money to families to show: "We want you to go to work, that will give you perspective and dignity."
“You have to make work more interesting again” – are the incentives missing?
Wouldn't that be met with quite a bit of protest from parents?
The parents want it the same way. This is how I get it: In our Ark we often meet parents who don't want to stay at home. They want to be role models for their children, but don't get the chance. This also means that parents feel degraded if, for example, they have to identify themselves in the subway as soon as they present their social ticket. Including citizen contact details and proof of need. That does something to human dignity.
The traffic light government recently increased citizens' money. How do you feel about this?
It is of course true that you have an increase because the cost of living of course also increases. You can't let people starve. After all, we are a welfare state and we have a responsibility. On the other hand, work has to be worth it and that's why there has to be a difference between citizens' money and work that secures a living wage, so that there is also an incentive. And to do that, you might have to make work a little more interesting.
It must be clear that work is important, that it is important to give something back to society. I also know young people who ask me why they should work when the state is giving away money anyway. There has to be a difference. When I talk about responsibility, to me it also means that we give people the chance to develop and not just sit at home.
What adjustment does citizen’s money absolutely need?
The economy should be on board. We have large companies with a lot of land and space - they could create daycare places in their company so that parents can also work. In Africa it is not for nothing that it is said that it takes the whole village to raise a child. We need skilled workers in companies, not just today, but also in ten, twenty, thirty years. If we don't pay enough attention to the children, we will produce failures, I'll put it bluntly.
Every year we have 50,000 children who do not finish school. The federal government wants to import 60,000 skilled workers from abroad because they need them instead of supporting the children accordingly. In summary, I would get business on board and also appeal to people to give something back to society.
“A drop in the ocean” – why basic child welfare is not enough
What do you think basic child welfare should look like?
The basic child benefit that is now on the way is a joke. Of the 2.5 billion euros, you have to calculate down 400,000, which will go towards reducing bureaucracy. The remaining 2.1 billion will go to 5.6 million families who can take advantage of it. That's 30 euros per family per month. That's a drop in the ocean.
I wonder why education costs money. Why can't basic child welfare be included in the education system? It reaches all children, regardless of their background, and can support them. Children who live in poverty are denied so many opportunities - they often cannot afford tutoring because their parents have to buy a new refrigerator, for example. They're not stupider, but they don't have the same opportunities as the others. Part of the basic child protection must definitely improve the education system.
What technical solutions would there be?
For example, I imagine that this could be regulated via an opportunities app. This means that the children can pay directly through their parents, for example for extracurricular tutoring, but this is not debited from the parents, but rather at the job center. This means the money goes directly to the child and doesn't end up somewhere else. I think most parents would be happy if the infrastructure for their children was created in such a way that it also relieves them.
That would require a higher level of digitalization.
In the digital sphere, we are a developing country, although we are the country of poets and thinkers. You only have to drive through some cities, sometimes you don't even have an internet connection and of course that doesn't work at all.
Children without a lobby – “This is an indictment for us”
In your opinion, what reasons are there for politicians to make these mistakes?
I wouldn't say they are mistakes. Children simply don't have a lobby. In politics, people are usually interested in one or two legislative periods, and politicians don't care much about the children. There are a whole series of interrelated problems; for example, people with poor educational backgrounds are more likely to have children earlier than academics. Bringing people from abroad and then perhaps paying them less than German skilled workers is the simplest solution for decision-makers.
You just said that children don't have a lobby. Is this a problem that can be solved?
Yes. For example, children's rights can be implemented into the Basic Law without restricting parental rights. When even the Council of Europe warns Germany that the fight against child poverty is progressing too slowly, then this is not just a view of the social associations or the Arche, but it is an overall view from Europe of our country. This is an indictment for us. We really shouldn't put up with that. But do you now have the feeling, since we heard this four weeks ago, that politicians are making adjustments? Quite the opposite. Now Mr. Lindner is discussing basic child security with Ms. Paus, whether this can even be done and whether we can even afford it. I have the feeling that politicians take the Council of Europe and our children equally seriously.
Politics must keep the promises it makes
You have mentioned children from immigrant families in the past. How does immigration affect your work at the Ark?
It is important that we give people security and opportunities. But what is not possible is for the state to let many people into the country and then simply hand them over to the care of volunteers, without any concept or further effort from the state. Politicians simply rely on people's social commitment instead of living up to their responsibilities and not only making promises, but also keeping them.