The greatest political challenge of our time is not economic crises, geopolitical conflicts and not just climate change. It consists in the fact that liberal democracy itself is coming under increasing pressure. It is possible that in a few decades it will only exist in remnants worldwide. The danger comes primarily from within – from political forces that use democratic processes to undermine their substance. In Germany it represents AfD represents the greatest threat. It is not simply a radical protest movement, but a party whose goals and ideology threaten the foundation of our democratic constitutional state.
To understand the scope of this danger, it is worth looking beyond Germany. Because many anti-democratic movements around the world are based on a similar ideology. In the USA, people like Donald Trump, JD Vance and the tech billionaire are making their mark Peter Thiel has a political worldview that is characterized by a deep mistrust of democratic institutions and international cooperation. Like me in my first column on the ideology of these actors This world view is based on a radical and at the same time distorted interpretation of the anthropology of the French philosopher René Girard.
Girard’s central idea that modern societies civilize conflict through state institutions is deliberately ignored there. Instead, it is claimed that democratic systems are too weak to control rivalry. From this premise it is then derived that authoritarian elites, technocratic control or private monopolies are the better alternative. This view is dangerous because it sees democracy not as a solution to social conflicts, but as an obstacle that must be overcome. The AfD builds on this thinking.
A human image of fear
It shares with the American right a basic assumption that is contrary to what underpins our democratic order: it assumes that the world consists of irresolvable conflicts that cannot be resolved through institutions, rules and compromises, but only through power and exclusion. In this worldview, democratic institutions appear as an expression of weakness, while authoritarian solutions are presented as supposedly efficient and necessary. The AfD paints a picture of a society that constantly has to defend itself against external and internal “threats”. This is not an accidental rhetorical style, but an ideological pattern: politics is not understood as a task of reconciling different interests, but as a defensive struggle.
This perspective creates an image of humanity that is characterized by fear. Individual diversity is viewed as a risk, not an opportunity. Pluralism is interpreted as division. Rights and freedoms are put into perspective as soon as they do not serve one’s own political camp. The AfD uses this image of humanity to sow distrust – towards the institutions that are supposed to deal with the challenges of our time.
The AfD disregards the basis of our prosperity
Anyone who soberly analyzes the AfD’s political project will recognize authoritarian structures that are reminiscent of the darkest chapter in German history. The AfD demands political control over the judiciary, it attacks independent media, it relativizes central fundamental rights and serves an ethnically defined understanding of nation and belonging. She claims that a supposedly homogeneous national community exists whose “true will” is distorted by democratic institutions. This thinking is anti-democratic and dangerous because it portrays political pluralism as illegitimate.
The political scientists Levitsky and Ziblatt show in their comparative analysisthat democracies do not collapse through revolution, but rather through gradual violations of norms. Freedom House has been documenting this trend worldwide for years.
Historically, this is a familiar pattern. Democracies rarely lose their substance in one fell swoop. They slowly erode when institutions are politicized, minorities are delegitimized and the rule of law is relativized. The AfD follows exactly this logic. It uses democratic procedures in order to then undermine them. It is therefore not alarmism, but rather a historical lesson to point out that a strengthening of the AfD would mean a return to authoritarian and exclusionary patterns that we thought we had left behind.
