Katja Hoyer: “You cannot save democracy by depriving it of discourse”
Alice Weidel's summer interview was drowned out by roars; the AfD roars during Chancellor Merz's speeches in the Bundestag. Can no one really tolerate other opinions anymore?
"The AfD has no right whatsoever to a summer interview," says Philipp Ruch, the director of the Center for Political Beauty, which disrupted AfD co-leader Alice Weidel 's appearance on ARD last Sunday. He spoke out in a Welt interview that, unlike Weidel's, went "completely undisturbed." Ruch firmly believes that he himself has the right to freedom of expression, which he denies Weidel.
His argument? "It no longer advances our society to discuss AfD statements," so why should ARD grant it airtime? The party and its protagonists should simply be removed, no matter how many millions voted for them. Since the party ban is still up in the air, Ruch's organization has already taken the enforcement of a speaking ban for AfD politicians into its own hands by massively disrupting Weidel's summer interview with loudspeakers.
Ruch has long advocated for an "aggressive humanism" that combats political opponents with tough tactics rather than arguments, because "the fight for human rights is being conducted far too politely." Human rights are not protected with "excessive, almost unbearable niceness," he says, but rather by "organizing strikes, blocking streets, insulting politicians, and occupying news channels." One result of this logic was last Sunday's deranged interview.
Other opinions? Unbearable!Why Ruch's organization—which, according to its own statements, operates with fewer than 100 people, supported by a circle of around 3,000 private donors—is allowed to determine how, when, and whether the co-leader of the largest opposition party can be heard on public television seemingly needs no explanation. He's simply right, and if he says the AfD isn't entitled to the human rights he doesn't fight for, then that's just the way it is.
Philipp Ruch is by no means alone in holding such views. Many people apparently find it unbearable to listen to other opinions and respond to them with arguments. The AfD itself is no exception. During the general debate at the beginning of budget week two weeks ago, their parliamentary group disrupted Chancellor Friedrich Merz's (CDU) speech with around 70 heckles and loud jeers. The noise reached such a high level that Weidel and her MPs at times dominated the scene, forcing Merz to interrupt his remarks.
Anyone who works in public has experienced the fact that many people now prefer to drown out, intimidate, or silence those with different opinions rather than engage with them substantively. To give a banal example, something that happens to journalists every day: In response to my column about the decline of the SPD two weeks ago, one reader wrote to me that the article was "unbearable." Another complained that my columns were generally "biased." Neither commented on the content at all.
Of course, columns are “tendentious”What is revealed here is the fundamental problem that hinders public discourse: the declining resilience to tolerate and consider other opinions. Of course, my columns are "biased." That is the main characteristic of all columns. That's why they appear in the newspaper under "Opinion." This opinion can then be supported, rejected, discussed, or ignored.
It is not in the spirit of an open, democratic society to refuse to tolerate or even suppress the expression of dissenting opinions. If one responds to the statements of others with such emotional aversion that one ceases to engage with the substance of what the "other side" has to say, one also ceases to understand why they think the way they do. This drives the polarization of society until it eventually reaches American levels.
Alice Weidel should be allowed to express her views just like Friedrich Merz, Philipp Ruch, or the columnists of the Berliner Zeitung. It always sounds a bit clichéd to say that democracy thrives on a functioning culture of discourse, but it's true. What Ruch and his center reject as "almost unbearable niceness" is precisely the civilized culture of debate with which we renegotiate politics and society every day.
For a long time, this was considered the norm we wanted to teach our children. I can still remember practicing writing "letters to the editor" in German class in the late 1990s. The teacher explained that you first read the article thoroughly and identify the arguments and examples it contains. Then you write a factual letter that begins with a formal greeting, refers to the article, and presents your own opinion, including counterarguments if necessary. You lost points for being unobjective, and you received very poor marks for writing "off topic."
Listening first requires emotional self-disciplineToday, precisely the latter is rewarded. Anyone who posts provocative phrases or even insults online gets clicks and "likes," which not only feel good due to the release of dopamine in the brain, but also increases reach in the long term, thus generating influence and income. In contrast, reading or listening to other opinions is unpleasant and seemingly offers no personal benefit. No one would be talking about Philipp Ruch if he had organized a rally a few streets away on Sunday, explaining why he thought Alice Weidel was wrong.
Perhaps I'm naive to believe that a civilized and thorough exchange of opinions can survive in the age of social media and viral short videos. Those who shout loudly, provocatively exaggerate, or simply insult the other side are heard. Listening to the other person in the first place, however, requires emotional self-discipline, and counterarguments are difficult to explain in 280 characters or 30 seconds.
As difficult as it may be, I still advocate continuing to conduct the struggle for positions politely. Of course, discussions can be heated, but for that to happen, they must first take place and not be shouted down or suppressed. Anyone who wants to silence others in the name of a more humane society is treading a very dark path. Democracy cannot be saved by depriving it of discourse. Indeed, that is its very foundation.
Berliner-zeitung
