AfD: This is how you protect civil society from enemies of the constitution

Enlarge image

Thuringian AfD party friends Höcke and Sesselmann: Democracy in danger

Photo: Carsten Koall / dpa

Last fall, the Thuringian regional association of the AfD presented a 5-point plan in the event of government participation. The MDR summarizes point three as follows: “No more money for democracy, diversity and commitment against right-wing extremism.” This refers to the state’s own “Denk-Bunt” program, which finances civil society projects with around 6.1 million euros per year. If this state program is canceled, those affected by right-wing extremist violence would hardly have any help and advice available in Thuringia. Many school projects, information events and other civil society initiatives for democratic and non-violent coexistence would no longer receive financial support. Many democratically committed organizations would therefore be on the brink of extinction.

These programs are the state's budget resources, which are negotiated in the state parliament and cabinet and then defined in terms of content by the responsible ministry. The scenario that a Ministry of Education led by the AfD simply cancels the program is therefore easily conceivable.

Can civil society be saved from authoritarian local politics?

Many local initiatives are also financially supported by the federal government through the so-called Partnerships for Democracy. To achieve this, local civil society initiatives join forces with the local administration to advocate for diversity and against extremism in cities, districts and communities. The funds are forwarded to the initiatives via the lead office, which reports to the mayor or district administrator.

District Administrator? There was something there. Since last summer, the Thuringian town of Sonneberg has had the country's first AfD district administrator. And so it is not surprising that Robert Sesselmann has already tried to destroy the local partnership for democracy there. This could only be prevented at the last second by the youth welfare committee in the district council.

Not all partnerships for democracy are protected in this way: If no other body has a say in their establishment, authoritarian populists at the top of local authorities can simply end the cooperation. For example, by simply refusing to sign the annual funding application; However, it would also be conceivable that AfD district administrators and mayors simply neglect certain criteria such as “combating right-wing extremism” when selecting funding or examine unwelcome local initiatives particularly critically. Democratically committed initiatives are already having a hard time in the affected regions.

But can it be prevented that an authoritarian district administrator finally pulls the rug out from under them?

There are suggestions as to how democracy promotion can continue to function even under the auspices of authoritarian local authorities. If a district administrator wants to cancel important democracy projects, the application could be managed by a civil society agency itself - instead of through the lead office as is currently the case. Most partnerships for democracy already have a non-governmental coordination and specialist body that can take on this work completely, provided the necessary positions are funded. Although this financing "bypasses" the administration violates the constitutional principle of local self-government, according to which municipalities are allowed to regulate all local affairs on their own responsibility, it could be justified by the concern to protect democracy.

The cooperation between local authorities and civil society, which works well in many places, should of course not be abandoned without good reason. But if the alternative is that regional initiatives are left completely alone in the event of an authoritarian takeover, more remoteness from the state does not seem to be a high price to pay.

A suggestion from the Family Ministry will not be enough

Another idea is to strengthen the existing monitoring committee. This is primarily staffed by activists from civil society. His current task is to analyze specific social conflict situations and misanthropic incidents in politics and society and to develop action concepts for the respective region. The allocation or cancellation of funding could be designed (as was the case in an earlier version of the program a few years ago) in such a way that the legally binding consent of the monitoring committee is required. This would give civil society a means of protecting itself against authoritarian-populist attacks.

On March 18th and 19th, the draft program for the funding period 2025 to 2032 of the federal “Democracy Life” program was presented. A strong civil society and a robust democracy are the declared goals of the revised concept, which also points the way for partnerships for democracy. The now mandatory “Situation and Resource Analysis” is intended to ensure that a partnership actually addresses local problems. This is a step in the right direction. But is that enough?

According to the key points presented so far, the monitoring committee, which is now called the “Alliance”, will continue to only make a “funding recommendation”. The committee has not shed its accompanying character with the name change; instead, the lead office remains the central control point. This means that the potential for abuse by an authoritarian district administrator or mayor is by no means eliminated. One also looks in vain for a replacement plan in the event of a municipality completely withdrawing. However, the last word will probably only be spoken with the final funding guidelines. The responsible Federal Ministry for Family Affairs under Lisa Paus would still have the chance to ensure that the proclaimed “joining ranks with civil society” also becomes a reality on a legal level. Before it's too late after the local elections in the summer.

Promote civil society – even if the AfD is in power

It is at least as unclear what a Plan B for endangered democracy projects at the state level could look like. The federal government is currently funding state democracy centers in each of the 16 federal states. Their task is to ensure that advice is provided for those affected by racist and other inhumane violence. The state democracy centers also support offers of distancing and exit work. At the state level, too, an AfD government could cancel these federal funds or use them for their own version of “democracy” with ethnic and racist connotations.

In such a case, can't the federal government simply support civil society financially bypassing the states? Whether the federal government has the necessary powers to do this is currently being actively discussed in the Bundestag in the context of the Democracy Promotion Act. The FDP in particular had expressed concerns: averting danger was a state matter.

But this makes things too easy for those with concerns. Limiting the promotion of democracy to viewing people as potential dangers falls short. Instead of “preventing extremism,” a new law should focus on political education and promote the independent work of civil society against group-related inhumanity. The federal government is also responsible for these two fields. This is how Tim Wihl, former substitute professor of public law at the University of Erfurt, argues in his statement on the draft of the Democracy Promotion Act. Promoting civil society can also work in authoritarian times - but only if it moves away from a security authority-driven extremism model.

Who or what is “anti-constitutional”?

But how can we then determine who should be excluded from government funds? The Federal Constitutional Court has a clear answer. Since the NPD ruling in 2017, the highest court has defined the core of our constitution - the free democratic basic order - in terms of egalitarian human dignity, the democratic self-determination of all citizens and the rule of law. In doing so, the Federal Constitutional Court makes it clear that it is an essential feature of our democracy that it is thought from the bottom up, from the citizen to the government and not the other way around.

Federal funding should be based on this: the equal rights of all citizens and a “bottom-up” democracy. In this way, the funds can be prevented from being passed on to inhumane organizations. The possibility should also be created to terminate cooperation with state ministries if they are occupied by a party that has proven to be against human dignity.

However, the goal should not be to centralize all civil society funding at the federal level. It follows that bypassing the state level is only a last resort and the role of civil society must also be strengthened in the allocation of funding. It is a big step to build up the appropriate resources to be able to carry out the necessary assessments by civil society actors, but also by the respective AfD association. The federal government is also currently faced with this question in its dealings with the AfD-affiliated Desiderius Erasmus Foundation.

The effort is definitely worth it. In many places, civil society is the last firewall against authoritarian and inhumane structures and the first point of contact for those affected by racist violence. The demonstrations in recent months have shown the strength that lies in civil society. Politics must not let them down now.