by Britta Bode
Civil society is becoming the target of political attacks and, in doing so, serves as a focal point for fundamental conflicts within our democracy. ‘Strengthening Democratic Values – Focus on Civil Society’ was the title of a series of events jointly organised in Berlin by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, the Alliance for Legal Certainty in Political Decision-Making and the Maecenata Foundation.
The session began with a Bible quote: “I have come to cast fire upon the earth. And how I wish it were already ablaze!”, says Jesus in the Gospel of Luke
(Luke 12:49), thereby calling for a firm stance, for – according to this interpretation – there is no middle ground when it comes to fundamental questions of truth and values. The call for civil society to remain neutral? A clear misunderstanding, as host Dr Joachim Klose emphasised at the opening of the event at the Konrad Adenauer Foundation’s premises.
“Neutrality and Stance” was the title of the first of three evenings devoted to dealing with real or manufactured misunderstandings, new narratives, shifts in discourse and, following a period of sometimes painful clashes between the political sphere and civil society, a new rapprochement. The very fact that the three organisations were working together sent a signal in itself.
So what does neutrality – and, by extension, tolerance and stance – mean for civil society in 2026? Although no legal claim to neutrality can be established for them, the seemingly plausible line of argument – that NGOs, even if only a fraction of their funding comes from tax revenue, must also comply with the state’s requirement for neutrality – has become firmly established in public debate to a significant extent.
Neutrality as a balance
An initial response came from the presentation by the journalist Dr Andreas Püttmann, who describes himself as a traditional conservative and who approached the concept of neutrality from this perspective in a brief overview of the history of ideas.
Püttmann noted that neutrality is by no means static, but must always be understood as a dynamic equilibrium. It must not, in particular, be confused with indifference when it comes to the defence of fundamental values, as this would not preserve the equilibrium but simply abandon it. He quoted Thomas Mann from 1934: “I am a man of balance. I instinctively lean to the left when the boat threatens to capsize to the right – and vice versa.”
For Püttmann, this raises some fundamental questions: must a conservative not, in effect, champion a predominantly left-wing NGO scene, as long as right-wing citizens are free to engage in civil society in the same way? Doesn’t non-partisanship always come to an end when it comes to confronting anti-constitutional positions? And finally: can party status really always offer a ‘protective shield’ through the construct of neutrality? Püttmann recalled the dictum of the constitutional law scholar Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde: ‘The liberal, secular state depends on conditions which it cannot itself guarantee.’ Accordingly, the state must grant its citizens absolute freedom, but is dependent on those citizens exercising that freedom responsibly.
Attitude and neutrality
Dr Roland Löffler, Director of the Saxon State Agency for Political Education, then went on to illustrate how the public debate plays out in practice, from an East German perspective.
Eastern Germany is now “more politicised than it has been for decades”, said Löffler, adding that this was actually a positive development, at least initially. He described the 2015 refugee influx as a turning point that had permanently altered the social climate in eastern Germany. Since the coronavirus pandemic, he added, political discussions have become increasingly difficult. Many people are now no longer willing to engage in debate at all.
Neutrality has become a highly charged term that is increasingly being used against the social centre. This was illustrated by the example of the reporting portals for teachers initiated by the AfD. As a PR stunt, it certainly worked. Although, unlike in a recent case in Saxony-Anhalt[1], no disciplinary action has yet been taken against teachers in Saxony, the entire teaching staff has been left feeling deeply unsettled.
Löffler emphasised the great importance of the neutrality of state institutions, which, however, must not be confused with value-free behaviour. In his field, he said, points of reference include, for example, the Saxon Schools Act, court rulings or reports from the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which could provide clear guidance. With regard to the education sector, he referred to the Beutelsbach Consensus of 1976, which was reached in the wake of the 1968 movement and is, in its simplicity, ingenious. The three fundamental principles are: learners must not be overwhelmed; the presentation of socially controversial topics must be appropriately controversial; and learners must be empowered to recognise and advocate for their own interests. His conclusion: neutrality and taking a stance are by no means mutually exclusive in the education system.
A commitment to the values enshrined in the Basic Law was the unifying theme of the evening. The rift between sections of the Union and civil society and the churches – a point raised by a member of the audience – was unanimously regarded as disastrous. The question of whether human rights are now, for example, considered a ‘left-wing’ issue highlighted the extent to which the discourse has shifted.
Tolerance and Polarisation
Where does plurality end, and where does the questioning of shared democratic foundations begin? Püttmann had already addressed the theme of the follow-up event with a quote from the far-right publisher Götz Kubitschek: “Our aim is not to participate in the discourse, but to bring about its end as a form of consensus; not to have a say, but to speak a different language; not to have a standing place in the salon, but to bring the party to an end.”
How should the pillars of democracy – and civil society in particular – conduct themselves in a discourse in which one side is deliberately acting in a destructive manner? And what is the state of our discourse and society – just how divided are we? Is the glass half full or half empty?
Katarina Peranić, Executive Director of More in Common Germany, addressed the issue using a series of key figures from her organisation. According to these, 72 per cent of people feel that German society is divided. However, this feeling is partly based on a perception gap: the positions of the opposing political side are often perceived as being far more extreme than they actually are. This distorted perception can lead to emotional polarisation, as has been observed in the USA for some time now. Consequently, those with differing views are no longer perceived merely as people with different convictions, but as a threat. Added to this is the fact that 77 per cent of people in Germany now perceive the public debate as hate-filled.
Equally worrying, he said, is that 63 per cent of people find it difficult to envisage a better future for themselves and their children. “A great deal of trust has been lost,” said Peranić. On a positive note, civil society still enjoys a high level of trust. According to the survey, 79 per cent consider civil society organisations to be indispensable to the functioning of society. Peranić concluded that people want all parties to show greater commitment to the country’s future. Civil society and businesses are the actors best placed to reach even the often-cited ‘invisible third’.
Tolerance through communication
In her subsequent keynote address, Prof. Dr Andrea Walter of the North Rhine-Westphalia University of Applied Sciences for Police and Public Administration focused in particular on the concept of tolerance. Tolerance, as the acceptance of difference, by no means implies that there are no conflicts; after all, differing opinions are an expression of a pluralistic society. Rather, tolerance forms the glue that makes it possible to tolerate and make use of these differences. Walter drew on Jürgen Habermas’ theory of communicative action, according to which understanding can only be achieved where people are prepared to engage with one another on an equal footing and with an open mind. Tolerance therefore requires, above all, communication.
However, Walter also referred to Karl Popper’s paradox of tolerance, according to which unrestricted tolerance inevitably leads to the disappearance of tolerance. Tolerance is based on a social contract and must therefore end where the free democratic basic order is under attack, that is to say, where the rule of law, non-violence, human dignity or the very rules of democracy are called into question.
So how can we counter growing polarisation? Walter drew on Alexis de Tocqueville, who, as early as 1835 in his work *Democracy in America*, described associations, churches and neighbourhoods – in short, civil society – as the ‘school of democracy’, where people learnt to take responsibility and find common solutions. She also cited Robert Putnam’s concept of social capital, which represents a network of relationships, trust and mutual support that is at risk of eroding with the decline of traditional forms of community. Tolerance, Walter concluded, arises above all from shared social experiences and collective action.
In his closing remarks this evening, hosted by the Maecenata Foundation, Rupert Graf Strachwitz emphasised the special responsibility of civil society and went on to refer to the British sociologist Colin Crouch, who has described it as a ‘watchdog’, the guardian of democracy.
Taking responsibility
The third evening shifted the focus to the key players and possible ways of putting the event’s title, ‘Taking a Stand – Taking Responsibility’, into practice. The event was hosted by the Alliance for Legal Certainty in Political Decision-Making.
In her opening remarks, Alicja Orlow from the RAA Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania painted a vivid picture of everyday democratic life in a federal state characterised by far-reaching social changes. Conflicts over resource distribution, East-West disparities, intergenerational tensions and a growing mistrust of state institutions characterised the social climate. A civil society that remains highly committed is confronted here with significant shortcomings on the part of the state, which it is by no means able to compensate for. At the same time, anti-democratic actors were professionalising their networks and deliberately putting pressure on democratic institutions. Narratives seeking to delegitimise civil society had long since reached the social mainstream, and democratic engagement was increasingly being discredited. Furthermore, an unsettled public administration was significantly withdrawing from projects and collaborative ventures.
“We need to defend democracy in material, social and institutional terms,” Orlow concluded, adding that democracy-building requires full-time structures, reliable funding and political recognition.
Businesses in the ‘Age of Monsters’
Now that the influence of the churches is waning, sport and business are the most effective ways of reaching as many people as possible. Nowhere else – particularly in the latter – do such a diverse range of people come together on a regular basis, explained Prof. Dr Markus Scholz, a business ethicist at Dresden University of Technology. Businesses have thus become one of the most influential forms of organisation in the 21st century. Does this mean that the business community has a duty to open up its natural forums for dialogue and become more actively involved?
It’s complicated. Numerous CEOs of German companies are currently approaching him with precisely this question, and whilst he does not have a simple answer, he does have a clear one for them. Firstly, drawing on the Friedman Doctrine of 1970, the social role of companies is clearly defined as being to manufacture products, provide services, employ people and pay taxes. Companies have, for a start, neither the legitimacy nor the necessary expertise to act as political actors. US business leaders who are currently exerting political influence provide a striking example of why this is not always a good idea.
But then came a major ‘but’: it is perfectly legitimate for companies to champion their own economic interests, for example through lobbying or other activities.
In the ‘Age of Monsters’ – the interregnum between old and new orders – it is up to everyone, Scholz said, quoting Slavoj Žižek’s pointed translation of Antonio Gramsci. When populists come to power, this is always accompanied by a curtailment of the rule of law and media freedom: the opposition and a civil society that is a thorn in their side are declared enemies, and the state is gradually taken over. For businesses, Scholz argued, this means significant business uncertainty, which is more serious than ‘normal’ business risks because, under certain circumstances, they may no longer be able to challenge decisions in court or through the media. The loss of liberal democracy and the social market economy would thus cause significant harm to businesses as a whole. They benefit greatly from legal certainty, freedom of contract, open markets and stable institutions. It is precisely for this reason that they bear a special responsibility as corporate citizens. In this context, Scholz referred to Ralf Dahrendorf, who warned against indifference in the defence of democracy and urged people to get involved.
But what form might this commitment take? Scholz is rather sceptical about direct political statements by chief executives or even voting recommendations. He believes these are often even counterproductive. Indirect forms of engagement are more promising: companies could create spaces in which they discuss democracy, the rule of law and the importance of stable institutions with their employees. Not in abstract terms, but by addressing the specific question of why economic success depends precisely on these conditions.
However, there is also a classic free-rider problem here: going along with the crowd and doing nothing may bring benefits to individual companies, whilst a commitment to democracy may, under certain circumstances, entail disadvantages or costs. Economic theory recognises only one solution to this: collective action, organised, for example, through associations or business initiatives.
Businesses alone cannot save democracy, just as civil society alone cannot do so. There is often still a lack of mutual understanding that stands in the way of joint action. Many civil society organisations do not speak the language of business, whilst, conversely, the business world lacks knowledge about civil society.
The collective action theory on the mobilisation of social forces provided the perfect closing note to this highly successful series of events. Scholz’s credo became a call to action for everyone: “Get up, carry on, every day.”
[1] Brahms, B. (10 August 2026). Teacher from Stendal tests the limits of the requirement for neutrality. mdr.de. https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/sachsen-anhalt/stendal/stendal/klage-gegen-abmahnung,lehrer-neutralitaetsgebot-100.html
Britta Bode is a communications manager at the German Foundation Centre. She is an economist and criminologist; she was an editor covering business and politics at the *Handelsblatt* and worked for many years as a freelance journalist for both national and regional media.