“Kafka, the gatekeeper and the Karlsruhe Court”

-Until what point may the mandate of the Fed Court gatekeepers reach?

-We can’t go back to national states. The EU must be completed!

By Pietro Svetlich

Franz Kafka graduated in law and then , after working for a few months for Assicurazioni Generali in Prague, started a job at the Workers’ accident Insurance Institute for the Kingdom of Bohemia.

In the second half of 1800 there was not much social welfare.The first companies to protect workers were incorporated around 1885. Kafka was fully aware of workers conditions’ in one of the most industrialized areas of Europe. He knew the exact procedures about safety and how to instruct a process in case of working accidents.

Kafka’s analysis is very helpful today as well to try to understand the German Federal Constitutional Court and his valuation about the actions of European Central Bank (ECB) .

I want to talk about the short story “Before the law” , and Chapter IX of the novel “The trial”, where K. talks with the priest in the Cathedral.

In “Before the law”, Kafka tells the story of a man from the country who wants to gain entry into the law and to do so he must enter the gate. The gatekeeper says he cannot let him in at the moment. Will it be possible later? Eventually is the answer by the gatekeeper. The man awaits for years, even try to bribe the gatekeeper; the gatekeeper accepts the offers, but answers «I accept only to make you think you haven’t neglected anything». The man doesn’t try to hurt nor to kill the gatekeeper to reach the law, the man awaits at the side of the gate for years and grows old. Moments before he passes away he asks to the gatekeeper how it is possible, since everyone leans for the law that no one has ever arrived at the gate. The gatekeeper answers “No one else could come, because this entrance was intended only for you. I am going to close it now.”

In chapter IX of “The trial” K. and the priest discuss the story of the man from the country and the gatekeeper. Who is the subordinate? Who lies? Who is unfair?

Someone gave a task to the gatekeeper. The Federal Court has been burdened by someone to watch over as well. The man tries to get into the Law and the gatekeeper stops him, in the same way the Fed Court reacts to the behaviour of another European Institution ( ECB) , but not in a preventive way. The gatekeeper and the Fed Court are subordinated in their movements to the ECB initiatives. We can underline that with respect to K. and the man, the EU has stronger instruments to defend herself. The European architecture is more balanced, even if not completed.

In the dialogue between K. and the chaplain the question is raised wheter the gatekeeper is the deceived. The gatekeeper doesn’t know what he is protecting neither the Law. We can say the same of the Fed Court. It doesn’t know all. It has a control task , suspects a disproportionate action, but doesn’t suggest any alternative. For sure the Court doesn’t know the future nor what is good for European citizens.

The gatekeeper has awaited the arrival of the man from the country and is tasked with controlling the man. The Fed Court has awaited for the ECB actions, even for all of European Union’s deeds. May we say that the Court wants to control plays and deeds of all of the European citizens?

At the end of the story, the gatekeeper says he is going to close the door. Can he really do this? Does he have this power? At the incipit of the story it is said that the door of the Law is always open. We live, as well, in a world of rules; the Law is never closed and we are in the shade of peace.

Until what point may the mandate of the Fed Court gatekeepers reach? To have noticed the absence of an instrument of political economy has been very helpful; it would be detrimental to frustrate again an attempt to unite the European Nations and to go over shortsighted national politics.

K. and the priest are at the end of their discussion. According to K. it is true that the gatekeeper could be the deceived. If so the decisive consequence would be that the man has been betrayed and suffered an irreparable damage. The end of the EU would be an irreparable damage.

K. eager and bold, states that the gatekeeper should be cast out for his mistake. His simpleness and good faith originates a damage for the man: to fall back to a policy of national states. The priest mediates and affirms that the gatekeeper is an instrument, he bears no fault. He is a servant of the Law, belongs to the Law and is removed from human judgment.

The conclusion of the dialogue is mercyless for everyone:

“[…] .The man has come to the law for the first time and the gatekeeper is already there. He’s been given his position by the law, to doubt his worth would be to doubt the law.» «I can’t say I’m in complete agreement with this view,» said K. shaking his head, «as if you accept it you’ll have to accept that everything said by the gatekeeper is true. But you’ve already explained very fully that that’s not possible.» «No,» said the priest, «you don’t need to accept everything as true, you only have to accept it as necessary.» «Depressing view,» said K. «The lie made into the rule of the world.»