Strong and resilient – but demanding
With 100 members of the audience, the 8th h_da Dialogue Forum on 16 April was very well attended. “Do we need to protect democracy from itself?” was the key question posed at the faculty of design. Church President Christiane Tietz, Hesse’s Minister for the Interior Roman Poseck and Charlotte Dany from h_da discussed how stable our democracy is, both within and outside parliament.
04/20/2026
In his opening address, Prof. Dr Arnd Steinmetz, The President of h_da, put his finger on a sore spot for democracy. He noted that significant sections of the population are open to authoritarian ideas. “In many of our parliaments, there is now a party that calls fundamental democratic principles into question.” The fact that we were born into a democracy and have grown up enjoying its benefits must not lead us to take either for granted. Steinmetz’s welcome address was followed by three short presentations from the perspectives of politics, the Church and academia.
Hesse’s Minister for the Interior, Prof. Dr Roman Poseck, began his examination of the current situation by looking back 80 years – but needed only a few steps to reach the present day. He recalled the entry into force of the Hessian Constitution on 1 December 1946. Following the atrocities of National Socialism, he said, it had created a framework for diversity and against extremism and racism. Since 1949, he noted, the Basic Law has placed human dignity above all else. “When I began my study programme in Gießen in 1990, I could not have imagined that democracy and the rule of law could one day come under such pressure.”
At present, according to the lawyer and politician, the greatest danger comes from right-wing extremism; but left-wing extremism is also gaining ground. Nevertheless, as he emphasised several times that evening, he still considers our democracy to be well-established, strong and resilient. “But,” he cautioned, “ultimately, what matters is that we reach out to people and convince them that democracy is the best form of government. To achieve this, the democratic centre must demonstrate its ability to solve problems.”
h_da President Arnd Steinmetz welcomed attendees to the 8th h_da Dialogue Forum.
Roman Poseck, Minister for the Interior of Hesse, gave the opening keynote speech.
Christiane Tietz, President of the EKHN, examined the issue from the Church’s perspective.
Charlotte Dany from h_da presented the ‘DemoReg’ research consortium.
Around 100 guests responded to the short talks with warm applause.
Afterwards, presenter Thomas Döring invited the speakers onto the stage.
The discussion focused extensively on how to deal with the AfD.
"What has happened to our hearts?"
Prof. Dr Christiane Tietz, President of the Protestant Church in Hesse and Nassau (EKHN), examined our democracy and the way we practise it through a church-based lens. She, too, began by looking far back in time, specifically to the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Not from the pulpit, but from the lectern, Tietz asked: “What has happened to our hearts that we are no longer receptive to this insight?”
“The Church has long struggled with democracy,” she admitted. In the past, she said, “undifferentiated faith in authority” had prevailed. But it has long been established that: “Democracy is the form of government that best corresponds to Christianity’s view of humanity.” Drawing on the words of the recently deceased philosopher Jürgen Habermas, Tietz called on the Church to fulfil its duty: “When the social bond breaks and the democratic bond becomes frayed, religions have a special responsibility.”
Prof. Dr Charlotte Dany, Professor of Development and Organisational Communication at h_da, contributed the academic perspective on the topic. She presented the Hesse-wide research network ‘DemoReg’ (democratic regression) and h_da’s research within it. The research examines setbacks in democracies and the rise of authoritarian forces. The h_da focuses on “civil society as a contested and shrinking space of lived democracy”.
“It is the strategy of the new right to infiltrate and take over the pre-political sphere,” analysed Dany – referring, for example, to sports clubs, fire brigades or cultural initiatives. Furthermore, the right wing is calling into question political neutrality and state funding for democracy-building work. “We are researching the challenges facing civil society and the conflicts arising within various groups.” An early finding from the project, which is set to run until the end of 2028, is that “dilemmas arise in how we deal with these issues”, as the openness of civil society, in particular, should be preserved.
“Hesse has a stable democracy”
Due to a few minor delays – a large crowd, a faulty microphone and a very detailed introduction – Prof. Dr Thomas Döring began the panel discussion a little later than planned. With regard to the AfD’s continued gains, the moderator asked: “Did we get off lightly in the local elections in Hesse?” The question was first addressed to Roman Poseck. “Hesse has a stable democracy,” he said, whilst emphasising the value of local politics: “The future of democracy is decided at local level.” Charlotte Dany picked up on this: “If, in a local authority, AfD members are taking charge of supposedly uncontroversial matters such as nurseries or swimming pools, I consider that to be problematic.”
“How do you deal with it when the AfD is in parliament?” Döring asked political expert Poseck. He said he drew a distinction between party officials and ordinary citizens. “I want to offer opportunities to the people who vote for this party. In the state parliament, I take a very direct approach to the AfD. But perhaps that’s wrong too, because it just draws attention to them again.” The Minister for the Interior described the strong response the AfD receives on social media as the “TikTokisation of right-wing extremism”. He said there was as yet no magic formula for dealing with the AfD. Christiane Tietz advocated seeking dialogue rather than polarising opinion. To this end, the EKHN had launched the “VerständigungsOrte” initiative. “There, AfD voters tell us: ‘Finally, someone has listened to me again’.”
This bridged the gap between the AfD, which dominated the discussion, and the questions: How can we reach people? How can they be encouraged to take part in democratic processes? What opportunities should be offered to them? In response to Döring’s question as to why so few young people could be motivated to get involved, Charlotte Dany replied: “I don’t believe that young people have no interest in getting involved. They lack opportunities and support.” Christiane Tietz agreed, saying that in her church’s political youth work she encountered young people “who are enthusiastic about democracy”.
Poseck welcomed the fact that young people are voicing their interests in the political parties’ youth organisations or other committees such as advisory councils and youth parliaments. At the same time, he warned against ‘parallel structures’. For instance, he considered it dangerous “when citizens’ assemblies make so-called decisions on transport or climate – that is a matter for parliaments”. Participation is important – “but not at every level and on every issue”, said Charlotte Dany. “It is more important to ensure that participation is carried out properly and seriously. Ultimately, participants must also be able to see that they have brought about change.” This was met with approving applause from the audience.
The second much-discussed question of the evening: What motivates people to get involved?
Roman Poseck warned against overestimating the importance of extra-parliamentary committees.
The presenter, Thomas Döring, based his questions on the latest studies or publications.
Charlotte Dany advised politicians to take participation seriously and to treat it with the respect it deserves.
Many of those present had their own questions and suggestions to share.
The hall microphone was, unsurprisingly, in high demand in many places.
After two intense hours and a relaxed and enjoyable get-together, the foyer began to empty again.
Lots of people wanting to speak, but not much time
Many of the roughly 100 members of the audience had been waiting impatiently for the discussion to be opened up to the plenary. They wanted to contribute their own ideas. There were numerous requests to speak, with very little time remaining. “I can only see a few people from my generation here,” remarked a h_da student. She went on to add: “People whom I find very approachable when I have direct contacts with them take radical stances on social media and spread misanthropic statements.”
One member of the audience attributed the loss of trust in democracy directly to the fact that “politics is being conducted so poorly”, failing to tackle the pressing problems facing many people, such as the high cost of living. “Yes, we have social problems and we must address them,” said Roman Poseck. Issues such as high rents are “key causes of the precarious situation many people find themselves in”. However, he immediately qualified this by saying: “Germany is governed significantly better than many other countries. And politicians also have only limited options.”
Some contributions did not lead to a question but instead turned into a “co-presentation”, as moderator Dörig critically noted. Yet even in this way, the audience contributed valuable insights. For instance, one student recommended involving students as panellists. This was a valid criticism, which Charlotte Dany took up: “We ask ourselves why there aren’t more young people here. We need to take a good look at ourselves in this regard. I believe young people need something with a lower threshold.”
So it seems that the same applies to democracy on a large scale as it does to the Dialogue Forum on a smaller one: it is just as challenging to create suitable frameworks for participation as it is to make wise use of them. Both require practice and the will to bring about change for the better.