Anyone who is not worried now can hardly be helped

Mr Wiebicke, in the spring of 2024, there was a feeling of elation among friends of democracy when hundreds of thousands took to the streets for a free society without extremism. Since then, a far-right party has become the strongest force in a federal state for the first time in Thuringia. Is this a historic turning point that should worry democrats? Or is it simply a democratic election with the character of a thought experiment?

Let's put it this way: anyone who is not worried now can hardly be helped. We have experienced a massive loss of confidence in these elections, which could become even more dangerous and which has affected all the forces that have supported party democracy to date. There has rarely been so much exasperation. But such moments can also signal a new beginning. Many more people will now ask themselves what their personal contribution can be to ensuring that the most beautiful of all forms of life, democracy, regains more trust and stability.

A few years ago, you wrote a widely read book with rules for saving democracy. Now you have written a second book on this topic: "First Aid for Democracy Rescuers". How has the set of rules for democracy rescuers changed in the meantime?

The election of Trump in 2017 and the reactions to it were the motivation for my first book. What happened in the USA was a threat scenario for all Western democracies. And indeed, this threatening development for democracy has intensified since 2017: populism directed against democratic values has become established worldwide and is now part of political normality. This time, however, the reason for the new book came from the opposite corner: the major demonstrations in Germany in the spring of 2024 against anti-democracy and right-wing extremism were the impetus for me to reflect: What happens after the demonstrations, how can we sustain this energy, this commitment?

And what is your answer - how do we make this permanent?

Before we talk about long-term options, we must first recognize the seriousness of the current situation and react to it. In the short term, we must make the foundations of democracy so strong that the enemies of democracy cannot bring the house down.

If the developments of recent years continue, there is a real danger that in future enemies of democracy will occupy key positions in state institutions, undermine the independence of the judiciary, undermine the protection of minority rights, restrict media freedom and generally further radicalize political discourse. These are considerable risks for our democratic foundations that we should not take lightly.

You speak of "enemies of democracy" - when does a person become a political enemy?

Political opponents have different opinions - that's perfectly fine. Opposition turns into enmity when it's all about personal attacks and defamation. In other words, when the substantive issues are just a cover to paint enemy images of individuals or groups. Enemies of democracy deliberately stir up hatred against people. Specifically, my definition of enemies of democracy applies to many AfD politicians, but only to a minority of AfD voters. You can't talk to enemies. But you should definitely talk to opponents.

You yourself have been presenting radio interviews for many years and have conducted many hundreds of interviews with a wide variety of people and live listeners. With this wealth of experience - how can we still get through to our political opponents in the deadlocked debates of our time?

Essentially, it's about allowing other points of view. The format I oversee - "Das philosophische Radio" on WDR5 - is not designed to bring together political opponents. But our format achieves something that is too often missing in public debate: questions are asked, people listen, different points of view are exchanged. Other points of view from other worlds are important in order to better understand the world and create connections. Avoiding fixed points of view as much as possible, making points of view more fluid - that's what this format is all about. This is pretty much the opposite of the prevailing discourse, which usually aims to sell one's own opinion as "right". This cements or reinforces antagonisms instead of building connections between people. A look at the USA shows what happens when the bridges between the political camps are dismantled: The camps hunker down, people within a camp confirm their firm opinions. Political opponents no longer talk to each other, only about each other.

You also spoke about the long-term possibilities for strengthening democracy. What can we do to make our democracy storm-proof in the long term?

At its core, it is about making people want to enter the engine room of democracy and actively participate. That sounds like a contradiction at first: "machine room" sounds more like a burden than a pleasure. But for many people, becoming active in the community and contributing their talents brings enormous personal enrichment. This can also be a small, manageable local project.

If I get involved in my home town in the interests of the community, am I already a savior of democracy?

Absolutely - in the sense that you become part of a local connecting network and participate in the democratic community. If everyone asked themselves: what would you like to see differently in your city, what should change - then everyone would come up with something. Turning an ugly building into a beautiful meeting place, for example. A concrete project like this can be the starting point, because active participation in civil society is also a communication channel into politics. This always has an effect, especially as there is also a drift from civil society initiatives into democratic politics. For quite a few people, volunteering is a springboard into politics, often together as a team of like-minded people.

Democracy sounds big, but we as active individuals in the local community look so small next to it. How can this supposed contradiction be resolved?

In principle, co-determination - alongside the acceptance of representation - is the essential pillar of democracy. And this co-creation usually begins in the local environment, because that is where we can best get involved in the first step. This is where people come together, create meeting spaces and work towards a common goal. Get off the couch and into action, into social exchange. Conversely, if the majority lazily - and sometimes cowardly - practises passive avoidance, this is perhaps the greatest risk to our liberal society of all.