Gerhard Schroder's baptism has been by fire. His first month as Germany's Chancellor has been scarred by industrialists' wrath over plans to redistribute taxes and close corporate tax loopholes. His Social Democratic/Green coalition has been ill-disciplined, critical of many of his ideas, and divided over planned higher "ecological" charges.
And in particular, as if to fan the flames, Oskar Lafontaine, the fiery chairman of his Social Democratic party, has set up an alternative power base in an expanded Finance Ministry - a vantage point from which he has taken pot-shots at Europe's central bankers and upset other countries with his ideas on harmonising European taxes and controlling exchange rates worldwide. With less than four weeks until Germany takes the presidency of the European Union, people across the continent have been wondering what is going on at the top of Germany's new government.
Interviewed in his office at the Bonn chancellery, Mr Schroder is charming and self-effacing. "Our problem was that we took on too much at the beginning," he admits. "We underestimated the difficulties that spring up when you take control over a government apparatus of this size." But talk of a rift with Mr Lafontaine, he insists, is all got up by the media. "The relationship between myself and Oskar Lafontaine - whether personally or professionally - is intact."
Behind the cool persona, there is gritty determination. Mr Schroder's father was killed three days after he was born on April 7th, 1944. The young boy left school at 14 because there was no money for books or travel. But he went to night school, passed the German Abitur (school-leaving certificate) and spent five years studying law at Gottingen university.
The agility of his legal mind is always apparent. Despite pressing domestic problems, his attention is on the EU presidency. Mr Schroder wants a new German "style" in Europe. "There has to be," he says, "because the old system of solving European problems with German money doesn't exist any more." Germany has been hit by the massive costs of unification. It now wants a significant reduction in its DM22 billion (£9 billion) EU net contribution.
It is a pragmatism that contrasts with the sometimes grandiose visions of his predecessor, Helmut Kohl, and which could result in a new phenomenon: a Germany at odds with its main European partners.
"I don't want [our position] to be misunderstood as a lack of European enthusiasm. I have always said that, having scaled the strategic peaks, we have to concern ourselves with toiling in the plains of European integration. That has to do with material circumstances.
"We have to ask, what does it cost and how can it be financed? That is no retreat from integration. I see it more as an injection of realism.
"It would be fine by me," Mr Schroder continues, "if our goal was so easy to reach . . . But I fear that will not be the case. We must therefore defend Germany's interests in Europe with as much determination as others defend theirs."
One way of reducing Germany's net burden, he argues, would be for EU national governments to make a larger contribution towards subsidising their farming sectors - a proposal which has met stiff resistance from the French government.
At least as controversial is the idea of rethinking Britain's rebate won by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. Alternatively, Germany's net contribution could be cut by increasing the amount of funds that flow back into the country. "I don't necessarily mean through subsidies. The money could come for research and development policy."
Germany's contributions are being reviewed as part of the "Agenda 2000" reform of EU finances and agricultural policy. Mr Schroder is looking for a deal by March. In June, there are European elections and without a deal, "it will be difficult to explain to people why they should vote for a European Parliament".
The Chancellor implicitly links Germany's financial demands to hopes that the EU's borders will expand early in the next century. Completing Agenda 2000, as well as reform of EU institutions, he says, are "objective preconditions" for enlargement.
His realistic approach, he argues, is more honest than "always stating the desirable". For example, unlike Dr Kohl, he has refused to set a timetable for Poland's membership of the EU (Dr Kohl suggested Poland would be ready by 2000). "You just create illusions and you damage the European idea if you name illusory target dates."
But Mr Schroder is quick to douse any thoughts that Germany, with its rebate demands and more pragmatic approach, is becoming less enthusiastic about closer European union. The country will remain a "motor of integration", he insists. "We have a special political interest in the EU - and not just one that relates to the past but which concerns the future. I belong to those for whom Europe is a perfectly natural thing. By that, I mean a single Europe. That is something I want. I am a German but also a European."
Indeed, Mr Schroder happily backs calls from Mr Lafontaine for the EU to abandon the prerequisite of unanimity among countries in decisions on taxation as part of longterm institutional reform. "We know there are differences of opinion in Europe but that does not mean it is not sensible, in a single market with a single currency, to have better tax co-ordination." His support for Mr Lafontaine's proposal is unequivocal - even if it jeopardises Germany's relationship with Britain, which is strongly opposed to tax harmonisation and has threatened to block measures hostile to its national interests.
"We must think in a rather longer timescale and be prepared to wait for the partners to be prepared to go along with this . . . I don't hold with threats or vetoes. Veto always means `I forbid' and has little to do with partnership."
Mr Schroder says he speaks "almost daily" to his Finance Minister and professes not to know what "all the fuss is about" over their relationship. "In the election, everyone said how fantastically it worked. You had two people coming together with the same goal, with different functions. This is still the situation. Oskar Lafontaine has accepted that I'm the Chancellor and he's Finance Minister. The constitution determines that this office sets the direction of policy and nowhere else.
"This idea of a battling duo is archaic. For those who have difficulties filling newspapers, it is no doubt highly interesting to always have two opponents. But where is the conflict in reality?"
His assurances are not entirely convincing. Take wages policy. Mr Schroder says he refrains from commenting on industry negotiations. But he admits one of Mr Lafontaine's closest advisers - Heiner Flassbeck, state secretary in the finance ministry - has outlined specific guidelines on wage increases as part of a demand-orientated policy.
"It is not for the head of government - and also not for members of the government - to intervene in wage rounds. I have also said to Mr Flassbeck that it is not the job of a state secretary to philosophise publicly how big a percentage increase in wages would be sensible.
"But I will not stop anyone from pointing out that in economics there is not only a supply side. Strengthening domestic demand also plays a role. It is like this prejudging of Lafontaine as a pure Keynesian thinker, who thinks only in demand side categories. Every public comment of his has been about a policy mix."
Difficulties on the domestic front, he argues, have resulted largely from disorder in SPD ranks. "The party and parliamentary group, after being used to opposition for 16 years, are now the government."
Could he have prepared better - and made the sort of impact Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, made in his early weeks in office? "I have a great respect for Mr Blair, but no reason to dress in sackcloth and ashes. A part of the criticism - about the speed that we have tried to do things - I take seriously. It is justified. I don't want 100 days' grace but more than five would have been fair."
There is a rugged determination to catch up. "We're a little more than three weeks in government."
Today, Mr Schroder launches his "alliance for jobs", bringing industry, trade unions and employers together to combine efforts in tackling unemployment.
He hopes in particular to win round industrialists, insisting reaction to his tax reforms was misplaced. Measures are planned to help small and medium-sized companies. Funds raised from increasing energy taxes will be used to cut social security costs, paid by employers as well as employees. "I had expected an outburst of approval," he says sardonically.
The interview draws to a close. Mr Schroder is due to meet senior coalition figures to thrash out plans for regular consultation to avoid future slips. Politics, Mr Schroder used to chuckle, should be fun. Has the fizz gone? "To a limited extent it is fun. But I still believe it is much better to govern than to be in opposition."