Hertie School in Berlin holds a special place in my academic journey, not only as a leading institution examining Germany’s political, social, and human dynamics, but also as a formative personal experience. My time there, and my continued engagement with the School, deepened my interest in understanding German society, even motivating me to begin learning the language. Figures such as Prof. Andrea Römmele, Dean of Executive Education, illustrate the institution’s sustained focus on political communication as a lens for understanding contemporary societal dynamics.
A recent Hertie School study presents a troubling picture of Germany’s younger generation: 29% report needing psychological support, 60% show signs of addictive smartphone use, one in five is considering leaving the country, 41% can imagine emigrating in the long term, and 23% face early debt pressures. The problem is not that young people are exhausted; it is that they no longer understand why they are working so hard.
Interpreting these figures as merely economic or social stress indicators misses the deeper point. What they reveal is not a failure of performance, but an erosion of the legitimacy of meaning itself. This is not simply a crisis of resources, but a disruption in the relationship between individual effort and expected return, which may be described as a crisis in the “fairness of expectations” that underpins the modern social contract. In this sense, Germany reflects a broader structural issue: a crisis in the governance of meaning within the modern state.
German youth remain willing to work and take responsibility, yet their confidence in a stable and fair future is declining. At the same time, many feel excluded from shaping the major decisions that define that future. The crisis, therefore, is no longer purely economic or social; it is increasingly political. The willingness to act persists, but belief in the system’s logic is weakening. When that belief erodes, the problem lies less in individual attitudes and more in the system’s capacity to sustain trust.
Migration intensifies this tension. Germany, one of Europe’s most open countries to refugees and migrants, faces a dual challenge: maintaining its humanitarian commitments while avoiding the perception that openness produces unclear or uneven distributions of burdens and opportunities. Here, policy meets perception, and perception often determines legitimacy.
Conversations on the ground reflect this unease. A doctor in Hamburg described the strain of treating patients who do not speak the language within an already pressured healthcare system. A Berlin family expressed frustration that the state demands a great deal while offering limited clarity about its priorities. These are not expressions of hostility, but signals of a deeper issue: a growing gap between policy and public understanding. Citizens do not necessarily reject policies; they no longer fully grasp their logic.
This dynamic extends beyond Germany. In Egypt, for instance, recent populist rhetoric has taken on a more hostile tone toward refugees, a trend that deserves careful attention. Such reactions may emerge in times of pressure, but the real risk lies in leaving them unaddressed. The role of serious opinion leaders is not to amplify these sentiments, but to reframe them within a rational and humane framework that balances state interests with human rights, without slipping into simplistic and exclusionary narratives.
At its core, the issue is not migration itself, but the state’s ability to manage it within a coherent framework of public meaning. When citizens perceive policies as understandable and fair, they are more willing to endure pressure. When that perception weakens, all issues, including migration, become tests of legitimacy.
If a country as institutionally strong as Germany is facing such challenges, the implications for other states are even more urgent. The question is no longer how to design efficient policies alone, but how to sustain clarity, fairness, and shared understanding around them.
Efficiency alone is not enough. A state must convince its citizens that its actions carry meaning, and that this meaning is both comprehensible and just. When a state fails to explain itself, it does not simply lose efficiency; it loses legitimacy. For legitimacy, at its core, is not performance alone, but the continuous capacity to justify the meaning of that performance.
Dr Ramy Galal is a governance and institutional reform specialist focusing on state capacity, accountability, and the design of effective public institutions. His work examines how institutional arrangements shape policy outcomes and government performance, particularly in emerging and middle-income contexts. He also engages with the concept of governance of meaning as an analytical lens for understanding how authority, narratives, and interpretation influence policy environments.
He is an Assistant Professor and a former Senator, bringing a combination of academic expertise and hands-on experience across both legislative and executive domains. He previously served as an advisor and official spokesperson for Egypt’s Ministry of Planning and Economic Development, with direct involvement in policy design, government decision-making, and implementation processes at the centre of government.
He holds a PhD from Alexandria University, a master’s degree from the University of East London, and a diploma in public administration from the University of Chile.
