Resilience of democracy: “If you want to prevent a worst-case scenario, you have to know what it is”

This leads to an almost existential question: Does a constitution exist if a government doesn’t abide by it?

Steinbeis: Without wanting to draw false analogies, we know this from our own history in Germany. The constitution of the Weimar Republic was quite robust, even exemplary in many respects—and it remained formally in force until 1945. That’s the dilemma: the law cannot enforce respect for the law by legal means. And that also applies to constitutions. 

Precisely because the legal system of the Federal Republic of Germany is based in part on the US model, the events there are relevant to us. We mustn’t console ourselves with the thought that all this is far away. Instead, we need to understand that democracy is vulnerable in Germany too – and prepare ourselves better for what lies ahead.

What should we be looking out for now?

Steinbeis: There’s a clear pattern: authoritarian-populist governments first target the judiciary, the civil service, the media, and scientific and cultural institutions. They are then delegitimized and rendered dysfunctional so that, under the pretext of “reform”, they can be restructured to serve the government's own interests and neutralized as a controlling authority. The perfidious thing about this is that institutions that are supposed to protect us from tyranny become tools of tyranny. 

At the same time, there are also developments that are very specific to the US because conservative circles have been working for decades to strategically reshuffle the Supreme Court. And the conservative-right majority in the Court is now giving the Trump administration an extreme amount of freedom. Some of the decisions made in recent months leave little room for any other conclusion than that the majority of judges are determined to allow the government to act unconstitutionally.

How do you assess the current situation in Germany?

Steinbeis: That is, of course, a big question and difficult to answer in general terms. I do believe that the Federal Constitutional Court is better equipped to resist political influence, especially since our constitution was amended last year so the composition of the Court can no longer be manipulated by a simple majority in the Bundestag. Ultimately, everything depends on the government’s not abusing the power it is legally entitled to in order to establish an authoritarian regime. German institutions would not be safe from a government as determined to abuse its power as the American one is.

What can be done if changes to laws or constitutions fail to offer absolute protection?

Steinbeis: Improvements can be made in specific areas, as has already happened with the Federal Constitutional Court. But we shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking that this kind of protection could ever be complete. We need to prepare ourselves for what is to come. 

Who do you mean by “we”?

Steinbeis: Every citizen. All institutions, all organizations: law firms, associations, local authorities, universities, cultural institutions, civil society organizations, but also state institutions – the civil service, courts, government offices. This raises questions we’ve never had to ask ourselves before: What happens if the state or federal level collapses? What scope for action do I then have in my own function?

You use the tool of scenario development for this – for example, in the Thuringia project, in which you played through possible scenarios for an AfD state government. The idea is to make possible futures tangible and thereby create pressure to act.

Steinbeis: Exactly. Just dealing with such scenarios, identifying and playing them through increases resilience. We spent a lot of time talking to people in government offices and courts. Firstly, because they know their institutions from close up and have a wealth of knowledge. And secondly, to get them to ask themselves “what if” questions. That's not the legal way of thinking. But taking this step also means critically questioning the apparent givens that form the basis of every institution. What happens when a government simply ignores a supreme court ruling? 

Since the AfD entered parliament, everyday parliamentary life has been characterized by situations where people say “No one has ever done that before.” But this no longer has any consequences when dealing with a party whose strategic interest is to obstruct the functioning of parliament. Our goal is to ensure that, in the worst-case scenario, we don't have to start from scratch, but are strategically capable of acting. 

What findings surprised you during this research?

Steinbeis: We’re currently looking at the judiciary, and we’re still in the middle of that process ... But when you take an instrumental view of institutions – “What can they be misused for?” – you come across some astonishing points. For example, you see how use can be made of even such an inconspicuous office as that of the chairperson by seniority of a state parliament. And then you're no longer surprised when that's exactly what happened at the constituent meeting of the Thuringian State Parliament in September 2024. 

I also find it noteworthy that the delegitimization and destabilization of the judiciary is a pattern that has been seen in Hungary and Poland – and that we’re also observing here. For example, the Thuringian Constitutional Court thwarted the AfD's plan to appoint the President of the State Parliament. And the AfD's reaction was to defame the court as politically biased, corrupt, and illegal. The goal is clear: undermining this institution so it can be subjugated once the AfD comes to power. The very thing that those on the opposite side of the political divide are accused of doing will then be implemented. 

Do you find this perspective easy to adopt – like a kind of white hat hacker who seeks out and fixes vulnerabilities in the system instead of exploiting them for their own purposes?

Steinbeis: The hacker comparison is obvious—and there’s some truth to it. But it’s also misleading. It's not as if there are nerds sitting in basements using their specialized knowledge to spectacularly crack the system. The points of attack are often relatively obvious once you’ve adopted the instrumental perspective on institutions that characterizes authoritarian populism. Since authoritarian populists see themselves as the “true representatives of the people”, they don’t need institutions for legitimation reasons, but regard them as instruments for gaining and maintaining power. 

We often talk about parliaments, constitutional courts, the federal police—in other words, the upper levels. Less present is the municipal level. What’s the situation in cities, municipalities, and rural districts?

Steinbeis: It varies greatly. In many municipalities, the AfD has hardly any presence, while in others it has a majority. In the Thuringia project, we investigated what happens when district offices fall into the hands of authoritarian populists. Municipalities and districts are the lowest administrative level and responsible for the simple enforcement of laws. How do the local authorities in a district governed by the AfD implement immigration and citizenship laws? What happens in schools, in the office of public order or the trade inspectorate? The district administrator can influence what happens, and if he is an authoritarian populist, he can and will probably abuse this influence. 

What role does civil society play?

Steinbeis: We’re seeing that private-sector funding bodies are turning their attention to the issue of safeguarding democracy. We need to reduce our dependence on government funding in order to become less vulnerable. Government funding programs are coming under increasing pressure, especially in eastern Germany. Once structures in rural areas disappear, they’re difficult to rebuild. Foundations that step in and keep organizations alive are enormously important. 

One last question: You deal with worst-case scenarios in your job. What gives you cause for optimism?

Steinbeis: I'm not optimistic in the sense that “everything will be fine”. Too many problematic things are happening in Germany for that. But what I am seeing is a growing fighting spirit, a determination not to just let things happen – and as long as I see it in many others, it stays alive in me, too. And I hope that I can give the people who work with me a similar feeling.