"You can expect something from the population and still be popular"

Created: 06/07/2022, 16:19

By: Anna-Katharina Ahnefeld

Democracy researcher Prof. Dr.

Hedwig Richter in the IPPEN.MEDIA interview.

The historian, born in 1973, teaches modern and recent history at the Bundeswehr University in Munich.

© Alena Schmick

Hedwig Richter is one of the most famous faces in history.

In an interview, she talks about major current crises and explains why politicians should have a lot more courage.

Munich – Are democracies worse positioned to deal with crises?

This

the well-known historian Prof. Dr.

Hedwig Richter.

The 49-year-old has been a professor of modern and contemporary history at the Bundeswehr University in Munich since 2019.

She is the author of the book Democracy.

Eine deutsche Affair” (2021), for which she was awarded the Anna Krüger Prize for Academic Language.

And convinced: Democracy is a permanent crisis mode - and this can even benefit the democratic system.

Ms. Richter, you say that democracy in itself is not automatically good.

Why?

Democracy does not have this beautiful history of the so-called West from triumph to triumph, from revolution to revolution, but a questionable history that includes racism and exclusion.

Fascism and National Socialism developed out of democracies - which they then destroyed.

The dark, violent side of the history of democracy includes not only tendencies towards exclusion but also the destruction of nature.  

Speaking of the destruction of nature: are democratic systems in particular acting very sluggishly in the fight against the climate crisis?

It is often down to the courage of the government.

The FDP currently stands for an old clientele policy.

But the traffic light government could prove overall that a lot can be achieved.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz, despite all criticism of him, gave a great speech with his "Zeitenwende-Speech".

He and some of the ministers show that you can expect something from the population and still be popular.

A good example of this is Federal Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock.

What's also exciting is that before the federal elections, Ms. Baerbock was seen as a bad solution and she was badmouthed.

And then it turns out that she is a qualified, committed politician.

Actually a typical quota woman who is fought at the beginning.

Let's stay with the climate crisis for a moment: To what extent are democratic systems prepared for the fight against the climate crisis compared to autocratic systems?

Even authoritarian systems can make climate policy.

But what distinguishes democracies is that they integrate the complex requirements of the different functional systems such as politics, science or economics and, last but not least, can take the majority of the population with them.

And yet they can, if necessary, push through their policies in the parliamentary system even against majorities.

Of course, it is difficult to convince the population.

But we are experiencing that the climate crisis is one of the most important issues for voters.

I often had the impression that the population would be much more willing to take on the unreasonable demands of fighting the climate crisis than the government wanted to do.

Democracy is actually the system that can implement unreasonable demands on the population with democratic legitimacy.

Corona crisis as a step backwards in equality - and the climate crisis

The corona pandemic has also made a lot of demands on the population.

Has this crisis, I am thinking of care work, which of course got stuck with people read by women, damaged equality?

The corona pandemic has shown how deeply rooted gender orders are - and how long it takes to break them up.

This was a terrible setback for equality.

The Corona crisis makes it clear how much all care work is still seen as a task for women.

We need to think about how democracy relates to reproduction, child rearing and the home sphere.

This already played a major role in the 19th century.

For the history of women, these aspects are much more important than the revolution, which often had very ambivalent effects.

The historian Paula Baker speaks of a "domestication of politics" in the 19th century.

This means that women in the 19th century managed to bring more and more of their issues into politics.

also read

NATO counters Putin's nuclear threat: Agreed in Elmau, nervous in the Kremlin

Scholz is surprised by the AfD question – and makes a clear verdict: “Russia’s party”

We see in history that societies integrate the rural population more quickly, can live with the fact that the poor or people of color have the right to vote, than that they have broken up the gender order.

These are very recent developments.

Up until the 1990s, the distribution of domestic work was clearly regulated in the Federal Republic and was the main reason for gender inequality.

The Corona crisis made it dramatically clear how deeply this is still anchored.

Nevertheless, one should see how much has happened. 

Is it actually possible to name a main theme for the 21st century?

Clearly the destruction of the planet.

This means that we have to tackle the problems globally today.

And beyond the old geostrategic power games and with more solidarity.

This is exhausting for democracies because this system has developed within the national framework.

And: We may now be in a phase where we need more technocracy again, similar to what happened in Europe after the Second World War.

A stronger consideration of science and the integration of technical knowledge, which is enforced by the parliaments and allows an effective environmental policy.

The keyword technocracy tends to evoke negative emotions in many people...

Of course it is true that we do not want technocracy.

But I find it populist and simplistic to say that we must resist the technocratic temptation.

Why?

There are phases in which it makes sense to look less for majorities and to find more courage for a clever solution.

This is exactly what we have our parliamentary system for.

When Europe is accused of being elitist, I would counter that democracies are so complicated that elites also play an important role.

The European project is gaining more and more approval from the general public.

Large parts of the population understand themselves nationally, but also European.

People can have hybrid identities.

Thinking further: Without understanding a hybrid identity, it is hardly possible to react to humanity's challenges like the climate crisis, which affects us all, isn't it?

Absolutely.

It must be clear to us that, for example, we cannot make politics without keeping an eye on the Global South.

Not only out of solidarity, but also out of sheer selfishness.

What happens when governments in the Global South decide to go through industrialization like we do?

That would not be reconcilable with the fight against the climate crisis.

You have to get a policy of solidarity.

A more global self-understanding is therefore an essential part of the hybrid identity.

About IPPEN.MEDIA:

The

network is one of the largest online publishers in Germany.

At the locations in Berlin, Hamburg/Bremen, Munich, Frankfurt, Cologne, Stuttgart and Vienna, journalists from our central editorial office research and publish for more than 50 news offers.

These include brands such as Merkur.de, FR.de and BuzzFeed Germany.

Our news, interviews, analyzes and comments reach more than 5 million people in Germany every day.

Democracy in crisis or realignment: Hedwig Richter on “hegemonic male discourse”

You write in your book that the way people treat the human body is a measure of the state of democracy.

How shall this be understood?

Power is expressed directly in the body.

At first I was surprised that historically the exclusion of women in the public and political arena was a matter of course.

Then I realized that rural people and people of color were treated in a similar way in the first half of the 19th century.

What unites these groups is that they do not control their bodies in social discourse and in practice.

As long as these people lived in the dirt, as long as they were allowed to be beaten, starved and their lives were worth nothing physically, they were unthinkable as political subjects for the rulers.

The emancipation of the body must always go hand in hand with political emancipation, it is always intertwined.

That is why social democracy belongs to liberal democracy.

Can it be said that the rights of women and minorities are never secure?

When it comes to women's rights, we see time and again how reactionary forces work to maintain patriarchal structures.

The emancipation of women is often perceived as a threat.

However, I am optimistic that these reactionary currents will not ultimately prevail.

Women, although there is still a long way to go, have more rights than ever before in Europe.

In fact, this upsurge is typical of times of strong forward momentum.

Former US President Barack Obama has not yet been able to campaign with lesbian and gay rights, and now there are large majorities in western countries to do so.

So, according to you, this swan song to democracy, which is partly sung, is wrong?

Most crisis discourses are historically so blind.

Liberal democracies are much more effective than the crisis discourse would suggest.

They are high-performing, highly integrated societies with a high acceptance of the system of government.

And when we look at the corona pandemic, one initially thought that countries like China would come through the crisis better.

That didn't happen.

Historical vigilance also includes keeping an eye on the destructive sides of the history of democracy.

Historian Dipesh Chakrabarty points to the important context of democratic liberties - built on the basis of fossil destruction.

Is it a form of historical blindness to focus too much on the now and on oneself instead of the big picture?

Yes.

I think a lot about where this joy in crisis discourse comes from.

And I think it's a hegemonic male discourse at times.

You can gain a lot of authority by propagating, for example: "I tell you, the world is ending, listen to me!" This is a more interesting message than pointing out that we have to change a lot, but that we don't have to start a revolution and the have to set the world on fire.

The revolutionary gesture is a far more attractive gesture than the reformist attitude.

But liberal democracies live on reforms and no longer on revolutions.

Reforms can also be radical, even have to be when it comes to the climate crisis.  

Can one say that when democracy appears to be in crisis, it is actually a kind of reorientation, a readjustment?

Yes, I definitely think so.

You saw this type of setback in the 1970s, when there was a great deal of democratization that led to severe social upheaval.

It's painful, but logical, why should innovations prevail without being discussed?

Of course there are setbacks.

At the beginning of the 1980s, Helmut Kohl stood for exactly this distrust of large parts of the population against the innovations.

The decisive new beginnings, such as the increasing emancipation of women or the liberalization of the education system - and also gradually an awareness of the protection of the environment.

As long as these people lived in the dirt, as long as they were allowed to be beaten, starved and their lives were worth nothing physically, they were unthinkable as political subjects for the rulers.

historian Hedwig Richter

Donald Trump a troublemaker?

Hedwig Richter explains Trumpism and crises in democracy

A supporter of then-US President Donald Trump wears a gas mask and holds a bust of him after he and hundreds of others stormed the Capitol January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC.

© Roberto Schmidt/afp

Finally, let's take a look at the USA: If you look at the most recent events, you might think that Donald Trump continues to have a firm grip on the country.

What do you mean by Trumpism?

Trumpism is a form of populism.

But populism is not something alien to democracy.

So you cannot explain Trumpism by calling it anti-democratic.

Typical of populism is the demand for more democracy.

Populism is characterized precisely by the fact that its actors claim that they do not want to abolish democracy, but stand up for more democracy.

This usually means more direct democracy.

A candidate like Donald Trump was only possible because much more direct democracy is practiced in the USA than in most European countries.  

What is special about American democracy – especially in contrast to Europe?

Europe has learned from the world wars and fascism.

Especially, of course, Germany from the crimes of National Socialism.

But the whole of Europe has, nolens volens, drawn from it the ability for self-criticism, the insight that democracy is endangered, must be changed if necessary and must also be protected against populist temptations.

These lessons are lacking in the USA, where one often encounters a triumphant and astonishingly reform-resistant self-understanding of democracy.

This also includes the belief that the American constitution, after all a document from a slave-owning society, is the measure of all things.

What kind of democracy will result from this in the USA?

US history shows again and again a democracy that, if you want to call it that, is strongly populist: with a lot of exclusion, hatred of elites, violence, racism, corruption.

The elections in the USA only became democratic in a liberal sense in the 1960s – when African Americans fought for the right to vote through civil movements.

From this perspective, US history could also be interpreted as follows: There were a few decades of elections that could be understood as liberal-democratic.

So perhaps this period of time was rather an exception.

What we are seeing now is not at all untypical of US history.

It is a very wild and disorderly democracy and a democracy where the rule of law is rather weak.

A frequently overlooked point that differentiates the USA from Europe,

In your book you describe how democracy is in permanent crisis mode.

Are populists like Donald Trump just troublemakers in this context?

Yes, the crisis is part of democracy.

But of course crises are to be assessed very differently.

On the one hand, there is something positive about the crisis nature of democracy, because it keeps us on the move.

Criticism is crucial.

At the moment, for example, we have a strong discussion about the crisis of inequality.

These are crises that belong to democracy and benefit it.

But there are also crises that endanger democracy.

Ultimately, the strength of American democracy is also crucial for Europe.

But I think the destruction of the planet is the really big crisis of democracy.

How can democracies get this under control?

Incidentally, one problem with the many ongoing, never-ending crisis discourses is that they tend to cover up the gigantic crisis of planetary destruction.