In Saxony-Anhalt, a party – parts of which are classified by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution as definitively far-right – narrowly missed securing an absolute majority. It is not yet clear whether it will provide the Minister-President in future. Either way, the results of the state elections in Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, and the House of Representatives election in Berlin, have shaken up the political landscape, lending new urgency to the debates on a resilient democracy.
But what does the term ‘resilience’ – which is so frequently bandied about at present – actually mean?
In general, resilience refers to the ability to weather crises and changes and to achieve stability under altered conditions. The Latin word ‘resilire’ means to spring back, to bounce off, not to stick. In a metaphorical sense, then, like a spring or a sponge.
When applied to analyses of the state of democracy, the term is frequently used in relation to the resilience of political institutions and processes – both in the face of external shocks and foreign policy developments, and in the face of domestic challenges, with a view to the internal structure of a political system. Current debates surrounding a robust democracy – ranging from the ‘firewall’ and procedures for banning political parties to the protection of the courts and the principles of the rule of law – can be categorised here.
More than just the resilience of institutions
However, a resilient democracy implies (and requires) more than this. In addition to the political-institutional level, social and individual dimensions are also relevant when dealing with crises, periods of political upheaval and uncertainties. This is particularly true when democracy is understood in a broad sense – not merely as a political system, but also as a form of society and way of life that is shaped by people’s daily actions in their own lives. This brings citizens themselves into focus: their civic engagement, their opportunities for democratic participation, and the structural conditions that enable or limit these.
At the heart of this, therefore, lie nothing less than the core questions of our democratic coexistence: What shared values and principles can we agree upon? Who can help shape society, and who feels part of it?
This also includes people’s relationship with politics, their trust in democratic processes and in the ability of governments and political parties to tackle problems and find solutions that endure beyond acute crises.
Loss of trust and the desire for change
The fact that there has been a massive shift in this area for some time now is reflected in the latest election results. In the follow-up coverage, for example, there are reports of quite a few voters who deliberately chose not to vote for the established parties and those who have been in power for years but who, in the view of these voters, have failed to bring about sufficient change or implement solutions. Now it is the turn of the others to prove themselves and deliver on their promises.
Whilst acknowledging that too many people made these voting decisions deliberately because the party they voted for holds far-right positions, it is worth asking what else can be gleaned from the election results apart from a loss of trust: namely, a desire to ensure that their own voice is heard. In the face of overwhelming global crises, some people who ticked the box for a party outside the established political spectrum may have perceived this as a regaining (or, indeed, a first-time gaining) of agency.
Thinking about the future as a key competence for resilience
How does resilience help us at this point? It becomes clear, at the very latest during the discussion about lost trust in politics, that the image of the spring alone – striving to return to its original state – no longer holds true. A ‘return to the way things were’ will no longer suffice in 2026, nor will merely ‘bouncing back’ from all anti-democratic attacks. No institution, not even democracy, can fully safeguard and protect itself. A resilient democracy therefore needs one thing above all else: the capacity for transformation as an outlet when pressure builds up against it. On the one hand, this means a willingness to continually reshape democracy and the way we live together; on the other, it means the ability to develop a vision of what such a way of living together might look like and how people can be involved in this process.
For this, too, is striking when looking back at the state elections: the established parties seem, so far, to have had too little success in formulating a positive narrative of the future, instilling confidence and, in this way, winning over voters on an emotional level. Thinking about the future must be understood as a key competence for a resilient democracy. After all, this is one of the central promises of democracy: that we can shape our own future.
We would like to initiate a discussion on various aspects of how this process can succeed and therefore invite you to the
conference ‘Strengthening Democracy – Resilience as a Task for Society as a Whole’.
The conference is being held in cooperation with the Helmut Schmidt University of the German Armed Forces and is funded by the Böttcher Foundation.
