“The sad truth is that much of the evil is committed by people who never decide to be good or bad.” Hannah Arendt, The Banality of Evil
Just a little over a day after the fall of the Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad on December 8, 2024, Germany decided to temporarily block asylum applications from Syria, despite no clear or reliable information about the situation. It wasn’t known, and still isn’t, whether people in Syria could be considered safe. In fact, some German politicians indecently proposed considering the possibility of deporting Syrians. Syrians who have been living and working in Germany for many years and are well-integrated.
It seems that Europe is there, saliva dripping from its mouth, ready to seize any excuse to point the finger and confirm its radical hostility toward the migrant as an ideological figure. This not only makes Europe inhumane because the migrant is no longer seen as a person with a history, needs, and aspirations, but rather as an abstract symbol onto which fears, prejudices, or political ideals are projected. It is also rather shortsighted, considering that the very person who is ideologically despised represents a key resource for the labor market and thus helps the system function better.
Just to give an idea: in Germany, 62,000 doctors are not German, and many experts have pointed out the alarming shortage of healthcare staff. More and more doctors are approaching retirement, and there are not enough young people to fill the gap because we are an aging country. Old people who hate the young simply because they are not white men.
Wanting to write an article about this, I contacted the BAMF, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, and among other things, I asked how it’s possible to reconcile the Einfühlungsvermögen – empathy, that BAMF emphasizes in its dealings with refugees with the decision to suddenly block asylum applications from Syria and the potential deportation policy, should it be accepted (which wouldn’t surprise me at all). I asked this because, although they are perceived as such in Europe, migrants are not like chickens to be moved from one place to another, without considering that they, too, have feelings, dreams, and aspirations. If a Syrian has lived in Germany for ten years, they probably have children, relatives, and friends in this land. So, I wonder if it’s correct or empathetic to even propose a deportation just thirty-six hours after the fall of a regime, without even knowing if people can be considered safe.
The response from the BAMF, as always extremely polite and soaked in gerne – gladly, and Vielen Dank – thank you very much, was roughly as follows: We apply existing laws, and our decision is based exclusively on the danger in the country of origin, not the life the person has built in Germany. Period.
The connection to the concept expressed by Hannah Arendt in The Banality of Evil was immediate. For those who don’t know, The Banality of Evil is about the figure of Eichmann, a Nazi bureaucrat who, when asked during the trial why he had committed atrocities, simply replied: “I was told to, these were the laws.”
The Banality of Evil 2.0 is further facilitated by technology, as in the response of modern bureaucrats typing from a computer, which amplifies the already present dehumanization, making it even more automated, impersonal, and technocratic.
Modern bureaucrats use a neutral, polite tone that serves to avoid personal responsibility, giving the illusion of objectivity through vague formulations. They answer questions indirectly, using the passive voice to create the illusion that it’s unclear who makes the decisions. For example, they say “the application has been rejected” instead of “we reject you.”
Modern bureaucrats refer to the law and thus to an abstract superior authority. For example, they respond that “the decision is based on principles of the rule of law” without ever delving into the fairness of that law. And, most importantly, modern bureaucrats impersonate a false empathy: they present themselves as soaking wet with Einfühlungsvermögen – empathy, but then declare that they cannot take the person’s integration into consideration when making a decision.
And this is exactly how the bureaucrats in the past who consented to atrocities through indifference operated: instead of saying “killing,” they used terms like “Final Solution,” Aussiedlung -evacuation, and Sonderbehandlung – special treatment. Instead of “deportation,” they used words like “transfer,” or if they spoke about people heading to a death camp, they would refer to it as a “change of residence” to make it seem like a temporary measure.
Nazism and fascism are ideologies that took root not because there was a “bad guy” who forced a population to become evil, but because that population acted as indifferent bureaucrats, never asking a question, never wondering why.
As much as we think about it, the evil that is planned to harm others is far rarer than the evil caused by passivity. And while the first is easy to spot, the second is insidious, it spreads in the air like a virus, disguised as a civil servant, as an indifferent bystander who, never deciding whether to be good or bad, contributes more than anyone to the evil of humanity. A banal humanity.
