Debate after the AfD's election successes: And are you just using the slogan?

Ever since the AfD's electoral success in Saxony-Anhalt, based on a past that did not exist and a promise for the future that could hardly be more approximate ("everything will be fine"), a feverish search has been underway in the country: What can serve as a unifying element across the different groups of voters? Simon Strauss's insightful article “From the German Republic”, which recently appeared as a lead in the FAZ culture section, should also be understood in this context (FAZ from September 18th).

Not only is it revealing, because the 38-year-old author, by describing the party as “right-wing revolutionary” in the first paragraph, uncritically adopts the AfD legend of the upcoming “second peaceful revolution in the East” and also classifies its Saxony-Anhalt frontman Ulrich Siegmund, after all a participant in the Potsdam secret meeting and an obvious supporter of the idea of ​​a large population exchange, as merely “decidedly right-wing”. Rather, it is also informative because the FAZ feature section presents an article in response to the state elections that explores the opening to the right.

The starting point of Strauss’s reflections is his observation that “in times that are coming to an end,” a new vocabulary (he actually calls them “flag words”) is needed in order to “awaken the sense of honor of belonging together.” According to his nonchalant diagnosis, categories such as “democracy, civil society or the rule of law” have “worn out in the political defensive struggle”.

Instead, the author advocates the concept of the republic because it has retained “a sound that includes more than just what is comfortable for it.” Strauss goes beyond a purely constitutional understanding of the republic as a counter-concept to monarchy and succession. Rather, what he would like to recommend to us is an “impulsive concept of the republic”. In such a situation “both left and right meaning can be sought because it expresses decency and inclusion, a sense of honor and solidarity at the same time”.

Strauss's appeal, presented with much pathos, is based on three premises - political vagueness, historical distortion and a seemingly naive understanding of the common good. Firstly, what the author means by right-wing “attitude” in the direction of which a “bridge” should be built is never made clear in the text. Does he still mean conservative-democratic or already right-wing extremist? He only rejects a nationalistic understanding of nations, which Strauss vaguely describes as “luridly vengeful”.

But why is it so difficult for him to name the AfD's racism? Instead, he seems to want to exculpate him with his splayed, reactive revenge formula.

Secondly, this becomes even more problematic due to the completely ahistorical use of the term. Strauss thus shortens the ancient republic to participation in the public cause (res publica) and transfigures this into a “character question of a virtue”. The fact that the Athenian state, like the Roman state, was based socioeconomically on slaves excluded from the republic and its polity is not worth mentioning.

As we know, the same was the case in the US Republic (which did not grant the black population the right to vote until well into the second half of the 20th century). Of course there is also another tradition of thought. However, celebrating “republican” as an explicit “opposite term to ethnic,” as Strauss does, is simply not possible.

And finally, thirdly, the concept of the common good. For Strauß, even the AfD's organized Simson moped rides are apparently intended to be a kind of republican assumption of responsibility. However, he remains silent about the political ulterior motives of such excursions - otherwise his concept of container, broad to the point of meaninglessness and loaded with all sorts of knightly signal words, could not be maintained.

The Republic is therefore certainly not suitable as a “flag word” – at least not if you want to preserve the ethics codified in the constitution. In general, why all this terminological effort when the Basic Law provides us with a set of rules that is infinitely clearer than the vague concept of the common good that Strauss uses threadbare examples to illustrate? A set of rules, by the way, which, according to surveys from 2024, more than three quarters of the population rate as very good or good.

It is high time to vigorously defend this country's Constitution. A new look at the constitutional patriotism devised by political scientist Dolf Sternberger and further developed by Jürgen Habermas is also on the agenda. Some conservatives may find it inadequate as a description of their own emotional relationship to the country. Radical leftists, on the other hand, may be unfamiliar with the concept of patriotism. Nevertheless, all Democrats, regardless of their political differences, should come together on the common ground of the Constitution.

And what does that mean in practice? Official events are unsuitable. Fresh ideas are needed.

One example is “Nordhausen Together”, a non-partisan alliance that is supported by social and cultural organizations as well as private individuals and is committed to successful democracy “in Nordhausen, Thuringia and beyond”. In a five-minute clip, the initiative shows local citizens quoting an article of the constitution that is of specific personal importance to them.

The local editor presents the article on freedom from censorship and the Afro-German entrepreneur presents the article on equality. The pastor quotes religious freedom, while the theater director recalls the freedom of art. And one is amazed: suddenly the abstract text gains an immediate and, yes, touching concreteness.

But that's exactly what it's all about, namely concrete reference and not a sultry "creed of faith" as Strauss has in mind ("You can never be completely Republican, you can always feel just a little bit"). You don't confront the zeitgeist of irrationalism by throwing yourself into its arms.

Wolf Iro is a cultural manager and author. His book “What counts now. Against everyday right-wing extremism” has just been published by Wagenbach-Verlag Berlin