Violence against civil servants has increased

Sociologist Joris Steg on hostility and violence in the civil service

In 2022, the Federal Ministry of the Interior and for Home Affairs conducted a study on violence against public service employees (the police were not included in the research) with the result that one in four people experience violence. You yourself are researching violence against politicians and public officials. Does the study by the Ministry of the Interior show particularly dramatic figures or do other studies come to comparable conclusions? What is the situation regarding violence against politicians and public sector employees?

Joris Steg: Violence against people who hold public office and work in the public sector - e.g. politicians at federal, state or municipal level, police, fire and rescue service personnel, civil servants and employees in bureaucracy and administration as well as teachers - is a serious problem and has reached worrying levels in recent years. Representative longitudinal studies that provide information on how violence against civil servants has developed over time are unfortunately in short supply, but because the phenomenon of violence against civil servants has attracted increased interest from the political and media public in recent years, there are now many studies on this topic. Because the studies are rarely representative, relate to different professional groups, have different samples and depict specific sections, generalisable statements are problematic. Nevertheless, some general trends can be observed. Firstly, it is clear that violence against public officials is a serious and widespread phenomenon. The results of the study by the Ministry of the Interior are unfortunately not an exception, quite the opposite. Many studies show an even higher rate of violence - our own study on the threat situation for politicians in the Bergisch city-triangle, for example, showed that a third of the politicians surveyed had already experienced violence. Other studies have come to even higher conclusions. In its fact book on violence in the public sector, for example, the DGB found that between 2018 and 2020, more than two thirds of employees in the public and privatised sectors were victims of verbal or physical violence. The second trend is that all studies conclude that violence has increased in recent years. Thirdly, all studies agree that verbal and psychological violence in the form of insults and threats is far more common than raw physical violence.

But the proportion of violence also depends on the area of employment, doesn't it?

Joris Steg: Yes, it is definitely necessary to differentiate between occupational groups. On the one hand, the proportion of violence depends on the area of employment. On the other hand, there are also specific individual, accidental, situational and job-specific causes, motives, opportunities and backgrounds that play a role in violence against different groups of public officials and need to be considered. Police officers, for example, are particularly affected by violence - for the simple reason that the (exercise of) violence is an integral part of their profession. The police are the main bearers of the state's monopoly on the use of force and police officers can and must use direct coercion both in criminal prosecution and to avert imminent danger. Police officers often find themselves in high-risk and dangerous situations as part of their duties - including disputes, disturbances, criminal offences, arrests, demonstrations, major events and football matches. These situations favour violence. Prison officers are also particularly affected by violence due to their job-specific characteristics. Politicians also frequently experience violence. As a rule, they are public figures who have a lot of contact with citizens during office hours, local appointments, public events and election campaign appearances. Most politicians are also present on the internet and have social media channels. This means there are many opportunities to attack them verbally or physically. While police officers and prison officers are more likely to be attacked because of their professional activities, politicians are mainly victims of hostility and violence because of their own political views. In addition to dissatisfaction with politics in general and specific political decisions in particular, positions on fundamental issues and controversial topics - such as migration policy - are often the decisive factor in violence against politicians.

Where does the violence against public officials come from? And what are the causes of the increasing violence?

Joris Steg: Violence against public officials is a complex and complicated phenomenon for which there is no monocausal or linear explanation. What is needed is a differentiated analysis of the multi-layered causes and backgrounds of violence against public officials. In doing so, it is crucial to consider both the micro and macro perspectives. This means that in addition to analysing the individual, accidental, situational and job-specific causes and backgrounds, the socio-historical context and long-term social trends must also be taken into account, as otherwise the phenomenon of violence against public officials can neither be understood nor adequately explained. This is because the increasing violence results not least from the interplay and interaction of various socio-economic, political-cultural and media developments. These include the crises and conflicts of the present day, increased social inequalities, the rise of (right-wing)
populism, authoritarianism and nationalism, the loss of authority and trust in state institutions and the structural change in the media with the rise of the internet and social media. These developments have led to a strong potential for dissatisfaction and frustration, which in some cases escalates into violence. And they have contributed to a disinhibition of language, a brutalisation of manners and the social climate, as well as a shift in both the boundaries of what can be said and the boundaries of what is considered legitimate. The result of these brutalising tendencies is a social climate in which aggression and violence against members of the public are becoming increasingly common and acceptable.

The inhibition threshold for assault seems to be falling. Why is that?

Joris Steg: The lowered inhibition threshold for assault is more than worrying and is unfortunately a general trend. As already mentioned, we are currently experiencing an increasing disinhibition of language and a fundamental brutalisation of the social climate, political culture and political discourse. This brutalisation is articulated in uncivilised social interaction, insults, threats and verbal abuse on the internet and in the real world, easily escalating social protests and raw physical violence directed at fellow human beings or public figures such as politicians, police, fire and rescue service personnel, civil servants, bureaucratic and administrative employees, journalists and teachers. In addition, there is a loss of authority and respect for state institutions and state authorities. In some cases, this leads to refusals to comply with the orders of state authorities such as the police. In some cases, the loss of authority goes so far that state authorities are no longer recognised at all and are rejected outright, as is the case with the Reichsbürger movement, for example. In any case, the loss of authority and respect is linked to the lowered inhibition threshold for verbal and physical violence. The role of the internet and social media should also not be neglected. The inhibition threshold for insulting and threatening people seems to be falling rapidly in the anonymity of the internet, while hatred and hate speech seem to be increasing rapidly in the anonymity of the internet.

Since 2008, the "Aachen Model" of violence prevention has been used by the Unfallkasse NRW to reduce threats and attacks. to reduce threats and assaults in workplaces with public traffic. Has the model proved its worth?

Joris Steg: The "Aachen Model" of violence prevention has proven to be helpful in various areas, particularly in workplaces with a high level of public traffic, such as public authorities or social institutions. The model is based on a systematic approach to preventing violence and threats in the workplace. It includes training, further education, awareness-raising measures and clear recommendations for employees on how to recognise dangerous situations at an early stage and react in crisis situations. In this way, the model firstly raises awareness of the phenomenon of violence in the workplace and creates an awareness of the problem. On the other hand, employees are helped to recognise and avoid potential dangers at an early stage. And finally, it is about concrete options for action and recommendations for employees. This also includes the development of a safety concept for emergency and crisis situations as well as the development of an aftercare concept for work-related crisis situations and psychological stress.

The city of Wuppertal joined the #sicherimDienst prevention network in 2022. How helpful are such networks and can they give employees peace of mind?

Joris Steg: There are various networks that support politicians and employees in the public sector who are affected by violence. In addition to #sicherimDienst, there is, for example, the starke Stelle - a nationwide contact point for municipal officials and elected representatives threatened by hate and violence, which was set up by the Ministry of the Interior together with the German Forum for Crime Prevention Foundation (DFK). There is also the internet portal stark-im-amt.de, which acts as a central point of contact for municipal officials and elected representatives who need practical help and support in dealing with insults, threats or attacks. The portal, which was developed on the initiative of the Körber Foundation in cooperation with the German Association of Cities, the German Association of Counties and the German Association of Towns and Municipalities and under the patronage of the Federal President, provides preventative and advisory support and gives advice on how to act in crisis situations. All of these networks do valuable work; they are helpful and necessary. Networks of this kind provide a platform for sharing experiences and lessons learnt, discussing preventative and reactive measures and transferring knowledge. In this way, people affected by violence can be helped because they are not left alone, but supported. In addition, institutions, organisations and employers can be helped with the implementation of support measures. Overall, such networks can help to increase the feeling of safety and security. However, it is important to emphasise that such networks alone are not enough to ensure comprehensive security and to tackle the problem of violence against politicians and public sector employees. To do so, it is also necessary to tackle the underlying causes of violence against public officials and to take consistent criminal action against perpetrators.

Concepts for the prevention of violence are all well and good. But what can be done specifically to combat the increasing violence?

Joris Steg: The brutalisation of society and the increasing violence against public officials cannot be explained by a single cause. There is no one reason, motive or trigger for the violence. That is why it is so difficult to combat. There is not one single adjustment screw that can be turned to make violence against public officials disappear. In order to combat and contain the increasing violence, a wide range of preventative, proactive and reactive measures are required. Above all, politicians and law enforcement agencies from the police and judiciary are called upon to take action here, as are online platforms, as the internet is not a lawless space. It is the task of politicians to provide a clear (criminal) legal framework with regard to violence against public officials and to effectively regulate online platforms such as Facebook or X, as self-regulation obviously does not work. The police and judiciary must take stronger and more decisive action against offenders. There is a need for consistent prosecution and the exhaustion of all available legal remedies, because far too often offenders remain unknown and get away without punishment. In my opinion, there is no need to tighten the penalties; the existing legal remedies are sufficient, but they must also be applied consistently. However, it will not be possible to combat violence effectively with repression and criminal law measures alone. Politicians must also tackle the underlying social causes that contribute to the brutalisation of society in order to counteract the loss of trust, authority and legitimacy of state authorities and to contain the potential for social dissatisfaction and frustration. However, it is not only politicians and law enforcement agencies that are called upon to act. Rather, it is a task for society as a whole to tackle brutalisation, hatred and violence and instead stand up for an open, democratic society and civil coexistence. Civil society needs to take a clear and decisive stance here. First and foremost, it is crucial that verbal, psychological and physical violence against politicians and public service employees is not normalised or trivialised. Familiarisation effects are dangerous, violence must never become an everyday part of public life and must never be seen as such. Violence against public figures only thrives and flourishes in a social climate in which the reaction is one of indifference, disinterest or even approval and support: Many perpetrators believe that violence is an acceptable and legitimate means of political conflict and that such actions are approved of or even desired by a silent majority. A clear social consensus against violence is therefore needed. The culture of violence must be countered with a culture of respect.

What are the consequences of hostility and violence?

Joris Steg: Violence always and first and foremost has consequences on an individual level, because people are affected by violence. This also shows that not only serious physical violence, but also verbal and psychological violence can have far-reaching consequences. However, violence against public officials always has an impact on democracy as a form of government and way of life and on liberal society as a whole. Politicians and other office and mandate holders have a central function for the community, which is irreplaceable for a vibrant and functioning democracy and an open society. When people in office have to fear for their health and integrity, for life and limb, this is not just a question of style. Rather, fundamental mechanisms of democracy are being attacked. Violence against public officials undermines the foundations of civil coexistence, jeopardises democratic procedures and leads to the intimidation of democratic commitment. Violence against public officials as violence against representatives of the state not only shows contempt for the individual in question, but also and especially contempt for democracy as a form of state and government. Acts of violence against public officials are attacks on the heart, on the foundation of democracy.

Uwe Blass

Dr Joris Steg is a research assistant at the Institute of Sociology in the School of Human and Social Sciences at the University of Wuppertal.