The alliances of these times have blurred the “cordon sanitaire” between democratic and anti-/semi-democratic organizations of the political left sustainably. That is why the perception of right-and left-wing extremism have diverged gradually ever since. Whereas political ambitions of national socialists, racists, and fascists are widely discredited in German society, the same does not hold true for those of anarchists, left-wing autonomists, and communists.
As to the legitimacy of political rights (the second aspect the charts furnish particular information about), the Germans appear to be easily stretched to their limits. It would not be exaggerated to say that they pursue some kind of “zero-tolerance policy”, characterized by rigour, narrow-mindedness and illiberalism, all of them being signs of a general insecurity in the face of anti-democratic threats. This insecurity in turn sows the seeds for a propensity to treat perceived threats, especially right-wing extremism, with prohibitions.
6. RIGHT-WING EXTREMIST ATTITUDES
The pronounced anti-right-wing attitude the surveys unveil appear to contrast sharply with the media coverage of 2014-2016. The reports and images have created the unmistakable impression of a swing to the right. Thus: Which impression reflects the social reality in a distorted way, which one is a correct mirror image? Is Germany’s political culture characterized by spreading far-right positions or rather by anti-right-wing-extremism? As we will see we have reason to believe that it is the latter.
What the media have covered in the last months – that is the Pegida protests in Dresden and other cities in Germany as well as several anti-asylum protests including violence against refugees – does not find its expression in the opinions and attitudes reported by large-scale surveys, with the “Mitte-Studie” being the most prominent one. Conducted by a research unit in Bielefeld under the direction of Andreas Zick and edited by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, the study even recorded the sharpest drop in right-wing extremist attitudes in Germany in 2014. What is more, this trend has continued in 2016 – just when the migrant crisis has reached its climax.
What do they mean by “right-wing extremist attitudes”? The elements of the right-wing syndrome comprised all in all 18 items concerning (1) the approval of a dictatorship, (2) chauvinism, (3) xenophobia, (4) anti-Semitism, (5) social Darwinism as well as (6) the downplaying of National Socialism. Each dimension is represented by three indicators.
Figure 9: Right-Wing Extremist Attitudes. Source: Zick, Küpper, and Krause (2016), p. 139.
If one frequently reads newspapers or watches the TV news, it comes as a surprise that among the six dimensions of right-wing extremism, xenophobic and chauvinist attitudes have recently declined most dramatically. They were recorded with the approval of statements such as “Immigrants come to Germany in order to exploit its welfare state.” or “We should repatriate immigrants when jobs become scarce.” or “Germany is infiltrated with too many foreign influences.”
Nonetheless, the results should be interpreted carefully. In 2014 and 2016 a research group residing in Leipzig arrived at somewhat deviant results – with the identical 18 items. Compared with the data of 2009, they report a drop of right-wing extremism by only 3.3 percentage points (instead of 6.6 percentage points). In addition, according to their study there was even a slight increase in 2016 compared to 2014. It is especially the two dimensions the Bielefeld research group has identified as the most regressive ones the Leipzig group obtains somewhat different evidence for.
| Bielefeld Group | Leipzig Group | |
| Approval of a Dictatorship | 3.6 | 5.0 |
| Chauvinism | 12.5 | 16.7 |
| Xenophobia | 7.7 | 20.4 |
| Anti-Semitism | 2.4 | 4.8 |
| Social Darwinism | 2.0 | 3.4 |
| Downplaying of National Snocialism | 2.0 | 2.1 |
Table 1: Varying Results 2016. Sources: Zick et al. (2016), p. 131; Decker, Kiess, and Brähler (2016), p. 37.
The gaps between both studies point to three facts: 1) Opinions, such as those indicating right-wing extremism, are highly volatile. That is they vary substantially over time. One cannot expect such a syndrome to develop gradually and slowly. Rather, the trend line is – among others – a response to political, social, and economic development. 2) The results we get depend to a considerable degree on the methods we use. Social scientists tend to underestimate the fact that it makes a great difference whether we use face-to-face (Leipzig group) or telephone interviews (Bielefeld group). That is the reason why instead of taking survey results at face value (no matter where they come from), we should probably pay more attention to longitudinal trends. 3) The items and topics both studies have queried are normatively charged to a substantial degree. For this reason, some respondents might be afraid of getting isolated or stigmatised with their genuine opinion. As a consequence, they seek refuge in socially desirable answers. Therefore, the situation in Germany might not be as satisfactory as the polling data suggest prima facie. The election results of ambivalent parties such as the AfD as well as survey data concerning political taboos confirm the necessity of a cautious interpretation of survey data on delicate issues.
7. THE ROLE OF TABOOS
In 2013 and in 2015 the IfD asked German citizens for taboo issues in society – in 2015 with a special focus on the refugee crisis. What were the results? Maybe the most revealing number was 43, because no more than 43 percent took the view that you can express your opinion freely when it comes to the migration crisis. Quite the contrary, in fact: a majority of 57 percent felt a certain pressure to conform (Köcher, 2015, pp. 8–9).
In 2013, when the institute dedicated a separate survey to taboos, people were, among other things, confronted with a range of statements and asked to evaluate each of them on two dimensions: 1) Should a respective statement be forbidden (upper bars in figure 10)? 2) Does a respective statement represent a social taboo, that is: does one burn his/her tongue when he/she offers his/her opinion this way (lower bars in figure 10)? Both items focussed on the actual extent of social intolerance on the one side and the perceived extent of social intolerance on the other.
It comes as no surprise that xenophobic, anti-Semitic and sexist statements have been considered to be the “hot potatoes” by the majority of respondents. They have the sense that you get stigmatised when you say things such as “Most reports on concentration camps and the Jews in National Socialism are exaggerated.” or ”Black people are less intelligent than white people.” or “Homosexuality is a disease.” or “A woman’s place is in the kitchen.” These statements are not supported by a majority of Germans, but are regarded as morally obliging by the majority, who feels subject to a certain pressure to conform.
Figure 10: True and Perceived Intolerance. Source: Petersen (2013), p. 6.
The most problematic aspect from a democratic point of view occurs with issues where the majority only imagines political pressure, that is: they think certain statements stigmatise its speaker, whereas in fact it does not. Why is this problematic? It is problematic because these issues become systematically underrepresented in political debate since the majority is in the mistaken belief of a taboo. This holds true for five statements concerning gender roles and xenophobia, including the following phrases: “Homosexuality is a disease.”, “Women are less qualified for leading positions than men.” and “Immigrants take away national jobs.”
All these statements represent intolerant attitudes: racism, sexism, chauvinism and the like. So at the end of the day: Why should we thwart social mechanisms that put a stop to such world views by silencing illiberal persons? The point is that not only the respective statements are stigmatized, but also the attitudes and the people behind them. This, in turn, does not make resentments and prejudices disappear. It only makes people say what they think on the quiet. In the long run it prevents an open debate on such attitudes, but also on widespread fears, stereotypes, prejudices etc. As a result of this, democracy is deprived of its largest comparative advantage over