Interview: The "firewall" and the fate of democracy
Moderation: Tom (MFRadio.de)

Guest: Prof. Dr. Mertels, former political scientist

Tom: Prof. Dr. Mertels, we have to talk about the current mood in the country. Harald Martenstein gave a veritable "incendiary speech" against an AfD ban at the Thalia Theater. How do you classify that?

Prof. Dr. Mertels: Martenstein has triggered a regulatory earthquake there. He argues that a ban would merely be a placebo that fights the symptoms but ignores the causes. His decisive sentence was: "On the grounds that one defends democracy, one can also abolish democracy." He warns against the attempt to "wipe out" millions of voters by court order, which could lead to dangerous radicalization.

Tom: Briefly explain the framework to us: What exactly was this performance "Trial against Germany" actually? Who is behind it?

Prof. Dr. Mertels: That was a theatrical and legal live experiment by Milo Rau. It was not a classic play, but a fictitious court hearing with real experts and witnesses. In addition to Martenstein, people such as the former Minister of Justice Herta Däubler-Gmelin and the publicist Liane Bednarz appeared there. It was a matter of playing through the major social conflicts – such as the AfD ban – legally.

Tom: And who was on the jury? Who passed the verdict in the end?

Prof. Dr. Mertels: That was the special thing: The jury consisted of seven ordinary Hamburg citizens – from nurses to pensioners. They sat on stage for three days and listened to everything. In the end, the majority of the jury demanded an examination of the party ban, as they saw human dignity violated by the AfD.

Tom: If you look at the program: Were victims of left-wing radical violence actually listened to? I'm thinking of the camp of the SPD or the Antifa, which often receive political support.

Prof. Dr. Mertels: In the sense of a formal hearing: No. The focus was clearly on the danger from the right. This is also a main point of criticism of Milo Rau's project: Many saw it as a "show trial". However, the opposing side, i.e. the opponents of the ban such as Martenstein, have sharply addressed this one-sidedness. They warned that the state is vigilant in its right eye but looks the other way when it comes to left-wing activism.

Tom: This brings me to a point that many listeners share: It often seems as if there is no longer any artistic freedom, but only censorship and left-wing slogans. For many, the "firewall" feels like the death of democracy. Anyone who votes for the AfD is excluded and defamed. This reminds many of conditions in the GDR.

Prof. Dr. Mertels: This concern about an "illiberal democracy" has grown massively. When the corridor of permissible opinions becomes so narrow that citizens are afraid to express their opinion in the office or in a club, then an inner emigration occurs. Martenstein put his finger exactly in this wound: Whoever abolishes freedom in the name of freedom has lost everything in the end.

Tom: Nevertheless, the Federal Constitutional Court has not yet classified the AfD as "definitely right-wing radical". Nevertheless, the pressure is enormous. Is that why many people have said goodbye to the consensus?

Prof. Dr. Mertels: Absolutely. Current rulings, such as the one from the Administrative Court of Cologne, have even recently confirmed that the classification as "definitely right-wing extremist" is not permissible for the time being. The fact that politicians and the media are still using the label so aggressively reinforces the feeling of a political campaign for many. This leads to people withdrawing in intimidation – or even more so voting for the opposition in protest.

Tom: I am afraid that the AfD will win the majority in the next election. But that also worries me: Will the field just turn around? Will there then only be revenge and strife instead of politics for the citizen?

Prof. Dr. Mertels: That is the risk of total blockade. If we only form "governments against something" instead of tackling problems such as uncontrolled immigration or economic decline, then we will end up at a standstill. What is needed is a return to factual politics.

Tom: Exactly! Factual issues must have priority. Let's take immigration: the social system and our values are at stake. And let's be honest: Why are you actually a "Nazi" if you are proud of your country, which our ancestors built up with diligence and sweat? Why can't you be a patriot?

Prof. Dr. Mertels: That is the core question of our identity conflict. In almost every other country, patriotism is a positive thing. In Germany, it is often immediately equated with nationalism. If you brand justified concerns about the social system as "right-wing", you take away the citizens' speech. This is extremely dangerous because it drives people directly into the arms of those who occupy these issues.

Tom: I'll tell you honestly: I think if the AfD comes to power, even worse extremism will develop from the left. I foresee terrorist cells like the RAF. Industry is already fleeing, and those who can are taking their money out of the country. In the end, the well-behaved, hard-working citizens are sitting on the shambles caused by lobby-driven politics. If we are not careful, the land of poets and thinkers will end up in the Stone Age.

Prof. Dr. Mertels: You paint a gloomy picture that reflects a deep alienation. But you are right: without trust in the elites and without real discourse, society will break apart.

Tom: Professor, thank you for this exchange. Hopefully, many people will find their way back to their "Mission Freedom" through such conversations. Because in the end, only freedom, love, family and our children count. That is the true meaning of life. Servus!

Prof. Dr. Mertels: A nice final word, Tom. Freedom begins in the mind and in open conversation. All the best to you!








Author: Tom Weyermann
Source: Interview with Prof. Dr. Mertels