The admission this week by the former German Chancellor, Dr Helmut Kohl, that he used secret bank accounts to handle undeclared contributions to his party, has come as a shock to his many German and international admirers. Yesterday, the Bundestag voted unanimously to set up a 15-person parliamentary commission of inquiry into the affair. Its chairman, Mr Volker Neumann, crisply posed the relevant questions: where did the money come from? How much was involved? Was it used to influence political decisions?
Dr Kohl's statement has embarrassed his party colleagues and comes at a particularly unfortunate time for their efforts to punch holes in the credibility of the Social Democrat leader and Chancellor, Mr Gerhard Schroder. Dr Kohl's successor as leader, Mr Wolfgang Schauble, makes the plausible, but unsatisfactory, case that Dr Kohl ran his party organisation in a patriarchal manner, but free of corruption and quite compatible with patriotic leadership and sentiment. That description would match popular perceptions of the former leader's behaviour. It is borne out by those who experienced Dr Kohl's methods and the detailed knowledge of his party's functioning that so defined his leadership. But several officials who clashed with him over questions of financial control have come into the open this week. One of them, Mr Heiner Geissler, a former secretary of the Christian Democrats, said he knew of 10 secret bank accounts controlled by Dr Kohl. Some of those who gave money to the party have also spoken out, including an arms dealer who could have benefitted from government decisions. The party could face heavy fines if it is found to have transgressed federal rules on political funding. Dr Kohl's admission that he found it necessary to treat such matters confidentially and using separate accounts, will cut little ice with the all-party commission set up yesterday. In the current political atmosphere Mr Schroder has every incentive to inflict maximum damage on his political opponents.
While there is as yet no evidence of corruption or undue influence by party contributors, the affair associates Dr Kohl and his party in the public mind with funding scandals elsewhere in Europe, in France, Italy and Britain - not to mention Ireland. The fact that Dr Kohl initially denied the allegations only adds to their damaging effects. He has made the strong point that he valued personal trust and loyalty over the formal rules governing political contributions. That may not be enough to sway public attention or deflect damaging attention from his party's sources of funding.
Whatever the outcome of the parliamentary inquiry, Dr Kohl's political reputation seems relatively secure - unless there is substantial sensational matter to add to what has become known this week. It was no secret that he ran the CDU party along such authoritarian lines, with an extraordinary knowledge of its organisational apparatus. But he was able to combine that with a hugely developed political instinct at home and abroad, which kept his reputation secure until these last few days. It would be a great setback for that political esteem were he to fall victim to a corruption scandal.