A rising sentiment in Western democracies, particularly the U.S. and Germany, suggests that democracy needs protection from its own citizens, leading to political hysteria. This mindset undermines genuine democratic processes, as parties prioritize self-preservation over collective governance. The discourse surrounding democracy often serves as electioneering rather than addressing real issues like immigration and public order. This situation reflects a troubling trend toward authoritarianism, where dissent is labeled as a threat, further complicating the political landscape.
The Perils of Protecting Democracy
In recent times, a troubling mentality is taking root—one that suggests democracy needs safeguarding from its own citizens. This dangerous belief is particularly prevalent in two pivotal Western democracies: the United States and Germany. The political landscapes in both nations have become so tumultuous that others can only hope to remain unaffected. A sense of balance and moderation appears to be a scarce commodity in these countries today.
Political Hysteria and Its Consequences
The foundational premise behind this self-appointed guardianship is straightforward: an open society offers a fertile ground for its adversaries to erode democracy from within. The conclusion drawn by these individuals is equally simplistic—this threat must be confronted at all costs. Who among us would willingly aid those seeking to dismantle democratic principles?
When Donald Trump disputes his 2020 election loss or when Friedrich Merz collaborates with the AfD in parliament, the call to action becomes clear. These actions must be resisted; otherwise, the proverbial “gate to hell” swings wide open, unleashing chaos across Germany.
However, the outrage expressed by the democrats in the U.S. and the ruling coalition in Germany lacks credibility. For their claims to hold weight, there must be neutral arbiters capable of objectively assessing threats to democracy. Unfortunately, such impartial figures are non-existent, leaving only partisan organizations—political parties vying for dominance.
In healthy democracies, parties recognize their role as a piece of a larger societal puzzle. They understand that they are not the sole saviors but rather contributors to the collective good. When parties start believing they alone are responsible for rescuing society, it reflects a disconcerting hubris and signals a disturbing trend. Sensing impending electoral defeat, they resort to extreme rhetoric to undermine established democratic processes.
Where are the passionate protests against the failures of asylum policies? If Olaf Scholz and Robert Habeck aim to thwart Merz’s rise and diminish the AfD’s electoral chances, that intention is valid. Yet, they are not defending democracy; rather, they may be attempting to salvage their faltering coalition.
The fervent discourse about the state of democracy during talk shows and political debates often serves as mere electioneering. When throngs of demonstrators flood German streets, denouncing Merz and the AfD, it is equally a form of campaigning.
Had these gatherings been genuinely motivated by a desire for justice, they would have protested against an asylum policy that has led to numerous tragedies. Instead, the focus appears to be more on political maneuvering than addressing the decline of public order—a decline that has yet to elicit a similar outcry from these demonstrators.
This orchestrated hysteria, fueled by government interests, aims to stave off certain electoral defeat. Historically, such theatrics have been a hallmark of the left. Can we recall a time when AfD supporters rallied against the potential ban of their party?
The left in both the U.S. and Germany operates under the assumption that it possesses an elevated moral compass, enabling it to declare the constitutional order as endangered. This self-righteous stance often extends to labeling opposition members as morally corrupt—terms like “traitors” and “extortionists” are thrown around with abandon.
By collaborating with the AfD on parliamentary initiatives, Merz reportedly breached a “taboo,” according to Scholz. The language used here is revealing; a taboo requires no logical justification and escapes scrutiny—standing in stark contrast to the essence of political discourse.
A government that positions itself above the political fray wields authoritarian power. One may disagree with the AfD’s alliances yet still reject the presumption of the ruling coalition. If the government, rather than the constitution, dictates the conduct of the opposition, genuine democracy is indeed in jeopardy.
Debate exists over who truly revitalizes democracy. The AfD, along with its leftist counterpart under Sahra Wagenknecht, manages to engage non-voters and encourage them to participate in elections. Similarly, the spectacle of Trump has galvanized voter turnout in the United States. Re-engaging disillusioned citizens for the collective good is no minor achievement.
Many citizens perceive democracy itself as under threat, attributing it to the government’s failure to effectively manage immigration. Terms like “state failure” and “loss of control” resonate deeply with the populace, reflecting their dissatisfaction.
Those who assert they are saving democracy must not dismiss voter concerns; instead, they should address the issues directly. Unfortunately, the current coalition has struggled to tackle migration challenges and the ongoing economic crisis.
The chancellor’s lackluster presentation of deportation statistics does little to inspire confidence; mere numbers do not embody effective governance. The majority of Germans harbor fears regarding the influx of impoverished migrants and rising crime rates.
This majority interprets the government’s recent focus on law and order as a desperate attempt to save face. Meanwhile, the Green party continues to push for increased immigration and family reunification, revealing divisions within the coalition on fundamental issues. Merz conveniently becomes the scapegoat for these tensions.
The absurdity of this situation is compounded by the likelihood of a black-red coalition post-election. The heightened emotions now will only amplify any subsequent disappointment felt by both political camps.
In Vienna, the FPÖ recently came disturbingly close to winning the chancellorship, an unprecedented achievement for the nationalists. Yet, the writer Robert Menasse preemptively condemned the FPÖ as “fascists,” calling for uncompromising opposition. This reflects the troubling tendency toward totalitarian language from the left, which undermines the essence of compromise in democracy.
In Austria, the FPÖ has participated in government roles at various levels, abiding by democratic norms. True fascists, conversely, do not relinquish power voluntarily. The reckless application of the term “fascism”—especially prevalent in Germany and the U.S.—further illustrates the need for a more reasoned and measured discourse.